Thanks for you answer, vovkkk. I'm sorry I only answer now, but I can only
spend a few time per week on GTG now.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM, vovkkk <email address hidden> wrote:

> > Driving the discussion and trying to make them land on something.
>
> What exactly you mean?
>

This was a general comment on the UI development, it is not directly at you.

From my short experience in the domain, I've had to discover that UI
development (mostly when thinking or rethinking an app) is hard to perform
in individual pieces. It is really important to consider every aspect of
the problem before deciding to adopt a particular UI implementation.

Consequently, it generally has to evolve on a parallel plan with the
codebase, and the discussion revolving around the UI must be mature enough
before any patch can be commited to the actual application code.

Therefore, starting the discussion about the future of GTG in a GTK3/Gnome
3.x environment requires some project planning and management (now that's
what I would call an understatement ;-) ). I think the best way to
correctly perform this is to have someone taking charge of this project.
This person should drive the discussion (make sure all aspects are
discussed correctly, and dismiss the irrelevant discussions, and close them
appropriatelyby a clear decision), and make sure to maintain some kind of
summary of the current state regarding UI proposals. The aim being so that,
at some point, it would be possible to switch in "development mode" and
actually write some code implementing the new UI.

This is only a suggestion, but IMHO, this should be performed on the GTG
wiki (in the same spirit as the Gnome 3.x). Perhaps a motivated person
should create the page, list the required views that should be defined,
link relevant existing bugs and create others if needed. It should also
maintain the page so that each page correctly reflect the present state of
the proposal. Last but not least, this person should keep in contact with
the developers, in order to make sure everyone is in sync and agree on what
will be adopted, and how to proceed towards the redefinition of the UI
(switching to GTK3 + changing the UI require significant logistics in
regard to the project: versioning scheme, schedule, releases, maintainance
of older versions, etc.)

Yes, that's a large amount of work. It also a very interesting one that
would result in significant merit inside the project. IMHO, it could be
proposed as a GSoC.


> > However I wonder if it isn't a bit large and crowded. Up to now, GTG
> has been thought to present itself initially as a very simple apps (main
> window, no sidebar, small size).
>
> I agree that small size of window is important for GTG.
> I see few ways to fit home screen and small window:
> 1) Sections adapts to window geometry — if window is narrow then sections
> arranged one under the other.
>

Ok, maybe you should provide some test for that, to see if what it would
look like.


> 2) Separate tab for each section.
>

It kinda miss the purpose of the home screen: getting a quick look a the
current situation.


> 3) Different UIs for home screen and normal mode (for example, Banshee
> with its MeeGo interface and ability to switch between different ui on the
> fly by clicking button on toolbar).
>

Now, that's a complicated solution IMHO.


>
> Also, about a small window, look at Windows Live Mail (how minimalistic it
> may be, still usable) http://db.tt/0ob9P7WF
> Compact sidebar with ability to choose which folders should displayed.
> In our case it might be tags, lists, smart filters etc.
>

I'm not sure to understand what kind of solution you suggest here.


> > The alternative 'brief' box is nice, and should replace the "current
> project" box I think.
>
> Indeed, though since Izidor (and i think, some other users and
> maintainers) dislike this, perhaps it could be replaced by, e.g. some
> kind of calendar.
>
> > Maybe the lower box could be replaced by shortcuts to useful actions
>
> Certainly, smart filters would be more useful. (see attached)
>
>
Yes, that one's nice. I like it. However, I'm not sure about the "new
search" button (what would it do? prompt a dialog?) It's probably better to
keep a search field in the UI at all time, even when displaying the home
screen.


> > Something has not been discussed up to now: it this redesign, how
> would the editor look like (still in separate window? integrated in the
> main ui/task list?) This has to be rethought as well.
>
> I think separate windows are important, it has a real use case.
> But again, we can get inspiration from email clients which allow to view
> mail in main window or in separate window.
>
>
This has to be thought in the more generic "bug window" discussion. The
question is: in Gnome 3.x, what is the default view for GTG? Large window
(better, tablet-wise), small window? (as for now?). In each case,
preserving the capability to have separate window for edition is good, I
agree. But if we were to reconsider things and opt for large(r) window as
default, wouldn't it be also a good thing to include task edition inside
the main window? That would provide a better use of the screen real
estate...

I haven't got my mind set on any solution here, just asking the question to
make the discussion go further.


> ** Attachment added: "history.png"
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/gtg/+bug/885320/+attachment/2596336/+files/history.png
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to Getting
> Things GNOME!.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/885320
>
> Title:
>  GTG needs a GTK3 port and a UI redesign
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/gtg/+bug/885320/+subscriptions
>



-- 
Bertrand Rousseau