Is slow to work with Unity when it has too many icons(bring back upper accordion of launcher)

Reported by Sergio Costas on 2011-04-28
62
This bug affects 10 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Ayatana Design
Undecided
Unassigned
Unity
Undecided
Unassigned
unity (Ubuntu)
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: unity

When there are more icons in Unity than can fit in the screen, when Unity is iddle, the icons are piled in the low end; but when the user wants to work with them, he/she must wait until the icons scroll when putting the mouse at the top/bottom, or has to use the mouse scroll wheel to move them. Both cases are slow and very boring.

I propose to modify Unity to pile the icons "a la Macintosh"; this is: the icons behing the cursor are fully shown, but the icons in the top or bottom are piled when the cursor is in the other end.

I attach tow concept images, the first when the cursor is at the top, and the second when the cursor is at the bottom. Since piling the icons is currently supported by Unity, it should not be hard to do it.

And here the concept image of how to pile the icons when the cursor is at bottom

Of course, the piling of the icons must be progressive, while the cursor goes from top to bottom or vice-versa.

Didier Roche (didrocks) wrote :

Thanks for your bug report and suggestion :)

Adding a design task so that the designers can have a look.

Changed in unity:
status: New → Incomplete
Changed in unity (Ubuntu):
status: New → Incomplete

FWIW this was the initial implementation (or at least there was a
proof concept done this way) of the launcher's accordion effect in the
early Maverick cycle if I recall correctly. I personally preferred
that as well and I don't know exactly why it was changed. I guess
there is a good reason, but I can't recall it right now...

Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl) wrote :

On 29/04/11 08:30, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> FWIW this was the initial implementation (or at least there was a
> proof concept done this way) of the launcher's accordion effect in the
> early Maverick cycle if I recall correctly. I personally preferred
> that as well and I don't know exactly why it was changed. I guess
> there is a good reason, but I can't recall it right now...

I don't believe the change was requested by design. Perhaps Jason can
clarify?

Mark

Omer Akram (om26er) on 2011-08-09
summary: - Is slow to work with Unity when it has too many icons
+ Is slow to work with Unity when it has too many icons(bring back upper
+ accordion of launcher)
Conscious User (conscioususer) wrote :

I remember asking Neil Patel about this on Twitter a long time ago, and if I remember correctly he told me it was a deliberate design decision, though he himself did not agree with it. It's too long ago for me to find the tweets, though.

manny (estelar57) wrote :

Should be an customizable option depending how the user uses its computer and how many shortcut/apps they have on the launcher at the time. Not every user is equal and the current behavior is not optimal for many. Is good as default and for casual user with 2 or 3 shortcuts, but power user needs more. I still feel the "original dynamic fold" depending on the position of the active app (aka accordion effect) had a SMART behavior and was the best on my netbook unlike the current that can be very tedious. So i think the option should be there.

Conscious User (conscioususer) wrote :

@manny, why an option?

So far, judging from the complete lack of arguments in favor of the current implementation in this report, I'd say that the best course of actions is bringing back the old behavior and that's it.

I honestly see no advantage in the current implementation, regardless if the user is casual or experienced.

manny (estelar57) wrote :

@conscioususer

Yes, I certainly think the old behavior was tons Smarter/better, but this is an interface in "constant evolution", so any one of the design team developers may wake up one day with a "better idea for the default" and get rid completely of the old behavior people like or are used to...

We need to stop "getting rid" of things thinking the "new" is better. This is why custom-ability / options exists. So even if you "change" the default, you can go back to the last behavior that works better for you.

The launcher currently has a few options that can be customized, it just needs to let users at least re-enable this now and if it becomes default or not (or some new behavior is introduced) is not something i have to worry too much about.

Conscious User (conscioususer) wrote :

@manny,

In everything you wrote, you didn't mention one single advantage of the current behavior.

Please re-read this report. This is what it has so far:

- one developer not rejecting the report and forwarding it to designers
- Mark not remembering of the current behavior being requested
- me mentioning that one developer disagreed with the current behavior
- ZERO arguments in favor of the current behavior

Maybe one developer or designer will eventually step in this report and give some good arguments in favor of the current behavior. If and when this happens, your point might be valid. But proposing a customization option BEFORE this happens, considering only the situation I summarized above, is wrong in all possible levels and introduces more problems and it solves.

Software development is not as easy as you seem to think. Adding customization options tends to MULTIPLY code complexity and possible points of failure, and also increases interface complexity for non-geeks. It is a decision that should be taken carefully, and only when there is a sufficiently balanced set of arguments for both sides of the proposed customization.

So you want to propose adding an option for the current behavior? Fine. But FIRST, give at least one argument in favor of it. Otherwise you might be as well requesting an option for turning the launcher upside-down.

manny (estelar57) wrote :

@conscioususer

yes, am pretty aware how development works.

>In everything you wrote, you didn't mention one single advantage of the current behavior.

for me there is NONE really, am advocating the old one for default too :)

But like i said before, if they don't "want" (who knows why) to implement it by default or they bring in some other new weird behavior, they need to keep the old behaviors people used as an option. For example something new they introduced was "auto/intelli-hide" over the "launcher-always-visible" behavior. The new one is better IMO, but for those who want or got used to always having the launcher visible, they can still set it back to.

Unity is still experimental and when you're experimenting you need to keep options for users, no matter what changes or until the dust settles.

Now this is only when "users are divided", so if no one comes to defend the current behavior with valid arguments, than there is no need for it and can be dropped in favor of bringing the old one back!

Conscious User (conscioususer) wrote :

'Now this is only when "users are divided", so if no one comes to defend the current behavior with valid arguments, than there is no need for it and can be dropped in favor of bringing the old one back!'

That's PRECISELY my point. I'm simply telling you to stop proposing solutions that only apply to a situation that's not confirmed yet and might not be confirmed at all.

Establish what the situation is, and THEN propose solutions. That's all I'm asking.

Danillo (danillo) wrote :

I think that now with the BFB in the launcher it's not good to hide it in the concertina. If this behavior is implemented, only the icons below it should collapse.

John Lea (johnlea) on 2012-09-03
Changed in ayatana-design:
status: New → Opinion
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers