gnome splash and screensaver lock dialog

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 02:55:12PM +0200, Mark wrote:
> 2008/4/15, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:10:52AM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> >  > Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >  >>
> >  >> The lock dialog defaults to the "plain" version for usability reasons
> >  >> -- that's something that's been decided upstream by GNOME and we
> >  >> probably won't be changing it any time soon.
> >  >
> >  > While I understand the point about usability (and appreciate you did the
> >  > work and submitted a design - IIRC this in not the first time you do that),
> >  > don't you think the root of the problem has to be addressed?
> >  > If we think a feature is that bad for usability reasons, shouldn't we just
> >  > drop it? Or make the themed dialog more usable or the simple dialog
> >  > prettier?
> >  > There *must* be a way to have something both usable and pleasant looking.
> >  >
> >  > To me, shipping two dialogs, one that is usable and another that is pretty
> >  > is like knowingly ship something broken and just papering over it a
> >  > temporary solution.
> >  > And I learned sometime you have to break the temporary solution to get the
> >  > problem solved properly.
> >
> >
> > Just for the record, I don't disagree at all with wanting to have a
> >  prettier lock dialog, I just haven't felt particularly burdened by it.
> >  I'd say, lobby the desktop guys about this and work something out. :-)
> >
> >  This isn't the first time (or the only subproject) ;-) where we start
> >  talking about these changes too late in the release cycle, but maybe
> >  we can get a permanent, mutually acceptable solution for Fedora 10.
> >  However, it ought to be just that, a *solution*, rather than simply
> >  advocating for switching a default without knowing why it hasn't been
> >  that way before.
> >
> >  I'm cc'ing some of the desktop guys personally just because we want to
> >  get their attention -- hopefully they can explain what the usability
> >  factors are, and how we can have a design that meets those
> >  requirements for the future while looking prettier.
> >
> Now that's going better.

Yet I failed to CC the people in question, sorry.  Taking care of that
with this message.

> But why is it so hard to adjust one gconf value by default? Fedora
> does that with firefox and i'm sure with others as well. So why is it
> so hard to change one gconf value by default? Isn't there a global
> conf package in fedora that manages the gconf changes?

It's not hard, we just try to minimize it.  Working with upstream is
the Fedora mantra.

> And if you read the reply's here everyone wants to have it on by
> default, even you said that, so.. what's the point in ignoring that?
> Don't tell me that making it themed can "confuse" users (something
> like that was said when i requested it in the F8 development cycle).

That's not what I said -- please reread.  I said I wouldn't object to
having a better lock dialog, but that needs to be done in concert with
upstream and whatever usability standards apply.

> Btw i saw the lock dialog now and it's height is a bit overdone for
> just a lock dialog if you ask me. I will make a mockup of what i like
> later today.

I'm glad you're now interested in doing this.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-art-list/attachments/20080415/f42f49f3/attachment.sig>