TedPage

When you use the "Show all desktops" feature of Compiz, you get something like this:

Which is a very easy way to arrange your life computer. But, what I was thinking about is whether we should be looking at all the applications or the desktop as a whole. Should it look like this?

So I put the panel on there, big deal. While this is a small improvement I think that it helps in a few ways. It makes the whole feature about managing windows, which is what a window manager is for, if the windows are zoomed out or if you're using the title bars. It's now possible to start applications in the zoomed out view, so you could set up several desktops positioning windows between them easily. It also provides grounding for what you're seeing. It isn't a complete change of the display, just a repositioning of windows with your familiar and lovable panel right there still with you.

I think that the reason it was likely done that way today is to mimic a similar view from Apple. But, Apple has a slightly different problem. Since their panel is application specific it doesn't really make sense to have it available in a zoomed out view. But our panel isn't, our panel is desktop specific. So I think it makes more sense to maintain a visual anchor in the zoomed out view.

posted on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 at 17:28 | permanent link

I'm simply thrilled. I have a Slingbox that is mostly used by my wife. I never really thought it would work under Linux so I didn't care. But, I noticed some instructions for getting it working in WINE. And it works! No, really! I am just delighted. Now I have to figure out why X is using 70% of one CPU and the player is using 40% of the other... Even looks nice with all the Compiz effects.

posted on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 at 00:35 | permanent link

I'm doing my part to promote a local conference that I just love: Southern California Linux Expo. It's a small conference that's attracting some really great speakers. I also love that it is volunteer run. It makes it just that much more Open Source to me.

Inkscape will be having a booth there again this year. So make sure to stop by, I'm hoping we'll have some give aways for those who stop in. Of course you can just come and share experiences or ideas, or just chat. We've enjoyed everyone stopping in for the last two years along with Wacom loaning us tablets for the booth so people have something to play with.

I'm also going to propose a couple of talks, I'll announce them too if they get picked up.

posted on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 at 15:29 | permanent link

One of the things I enjoy about Doonesbury is that they have a small poll on their website called The Watercooler. The most recent edition deals with recent writer's strike. I've been unable to find a way to link to the poll, so I've reproduced it here:

A breakdown of talks between the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers has lead 13,000 WGA members to go on strike. An estimated 340,000 people in the entertainment and related industries may eventually suffer economically as a result. But enough about them...
What's the main impact for you, the viewer?
A Anger. Bad enough to be deprived of essential-to-life shows during a Golden Age of Television Writing, but a dramatic proliferation of reality programming is a very real threat. Put me down as steamed.
B Sympathy. Since online ads are driving me crazy, I know somebody's making money off video content on the net. Stop denying there's a pie, Hollywood, and cut the writers a slice.
C Horrified. We have two wars, a mortgage meltdown, a currency in freefall and Detroit on the ropes. So let's nuke Big Entertainment, the only industry we still own? Who wrote that scenario?
Viewing habits
A Intense	B Moderate	C Light

---

Total Votes 5567 4% 83% 11% A B C

Intense Votes 946 9% 82% 7% A B C

Moderate Votes 2329 4% 86% 9% A B C

Light Votes 2292 3% 80% 15% A B C

In looking at those results (which are non-scientific) what I find the most interesting is that sympathy is relatively consistent across the board, but the other two relate directly to how much TV you watch. Basically, you watch a lot and your entertainment is a higher priority, you watch a little and the US economy is a priority. Interesting.

As far as the writers are concerned, I think their timing is off. The reality today is that the on-line programming business model is in flux, no one really knows how it's going to work out. This makes the studios uncomfortable making a deal, which then stalls negotiations. They'd be better off signing a short term contract with some "intent" statements in it and negotiate more fully when the business issues are fleshed out.

posted on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 at 17:39 | permanent link

After posting a link to some screenshot of panel scaling in Gutsy a discussion ensued about what should happen. One of the issues was that of scaling icons, and really how just simply scaling them would cause them to become blurry. I think the discussion got a little bit theoretical, so I wanted to provide some visual basis for understanding the problem. Here's an icon from the Tango collection at both it's native 32 pixels and scaled up to 37 pixels (15.6 percent).

While the second icon doesn't look bad you'll notice that it isn't as sharp as the first one. One of the places that this is easiest to see is the marks on the ruler which come in and out. When can start to see why this happens as we zoom in to a smaller part of the icons.

If you look at the normal icon you can see that all of the edges line up exactly on the pixel grid. This means that all the boundaries in the rasterized view of the icon match with the design. If we look at the scaled icon you can see that this isn't the case. The markings on the ruler are in many different pixels, which causes the blurring that you see in the icon. They have different strengths depending on their location along the ruler.

In order to get good scaling of icons, we need an algorithm that will scale them not mathematically, but based on their visual goodness. So you still want them to look sharp, even as they grow. In this example the line widths would stay the same, and the ruler would grow in the middle. That way each marking remains one pixel. This is very similar to hinting for fonts. As an example of how this should work I asked an artist to scale the icon for me.

Anyone need a thesis project?

Overall, I don't believe that this should stop us from moving towards scaling but it should be on the TODO list to fix. The icon is still recognizable, and most people who spend all their days looking at computer monitors don't have that good of vision anyway.

posted on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 at 18:33 | permanent link

As I've started to look through various usability things on the Ubuntu Desktop I came across the pop-up menu for the mixer applet (pictured right). You can see that two of the menu items have accelerators, but how do you use those? The panel doesn't receive these events. It makes me laugh to think about how much time we talk about adding accelerators and here the effort was made -- but there's no way to use them.

Chances are that this hasn't caused you usability stress in your daily operations. Now that I've mentioned it, I'm sure it will <smile>. But, I've gone ahead and thrown together a small patch to fix it and put an updated package in my PPA in case it bugs you that much.

Overall, I still find this funny.

Correction:

I found a way to use these accelerators, if you bring down the volume slider, then the applet does have focus and at least the open accelerator works. Mute still doesn't, I'm not sure why. So instead of being completely useless I would say that they are effectively useless, and still confusing for new folks.

posted on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 at 23:45 | permanent link

As I'm getting used to working from home I'm exploring fun places to take my laptop and work. I was taking my wife to the airport yesterday, so I took advantage of the situation to stop by the new Santa Monica Main Library. The building is fantastic. Notice the melding of indoor and outdoor space, really nice.

I found a "Quiet Study Area" that was looking over the courtyard (did you see the stream going through the center?) and fired up the laptop. Found the "City Wi-Fi" and I was pretty pleased with Network Manager. Couldn't find the mail server. No IM servers. Hmm. Ah, web click through agreement, I always forget those. I guess some people use the web first so that makes sense, click through. Still nothing. Errrrr.

So I started searching the library website for information and came across the WiFi brocure with this quote:

Why can't I check my email?
Only web-based email access (webmail) is available at the Library. You must go to your email provider's website to check your email.

Seriously? Apparently that is all you can use the Internet for at the library anymore. I miss gopher. (okay, not really) I guess I'm going to have to set up an SSH tunnel VPN using Proxytunnel. Seems like a lot of work to be able to use the full Internet at the library.

posted on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 at 15:21 | permanent link