Console based desktop manager? - Page 2

SamK · posted: 2013-08-05 14:31

BitJam wrote:Mock screen shot:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Console Desktop Manager

   User:[demo]                         Icons:[SpaceFM]

          dwm           IceWM     XBMC
          e16           [jwm]
          Fluxbox       Razor
      
              [Configure]   [Help]
   
       Arrow keys:  select window manager
   Tab, Shift-tab:  select active area
        space-bar:  select, launch
Hot-keys: (U)ser (I)cons (W)indow-manager (C)onfigure (H)elp    
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

My initial response to this is that it is trying to do too many things and loses clarity of purpose as a result.

The acid test might be to present the mock-up to someone that has no technical background and no exposure to antiX. Simply pose the questions:

What is your first reaction to this screen?
What do you think it is for?
What do you do next?

My replies:

Overly complex and not user-friendly
Unfair as I know it is a login screen - although that is not mentioned anywhere
I genuinely have no idea

What is meant by:

Icons:[SpaceFM]
Tab, Shift-tab: select active area
space-bar: select, launch

The descriptions of these are too brief and not indicative enough.

The screen title may accurately describe what it is, but does not describe what it does.

Suggestions
Ensure the default is to boot with a vga parameter that is suitable for people with impaired eyesight. This might be vga=788 or, for even larger text, no vga= parameter. Users with unimpaired eyesight can subsequently change the resolution.

Most users will perceive the purpose of this screen is to log-in to the system. Focus on this task in order to improve clarity. Perhaps the screen might contain only the following:

Title=Login
Field1=Name
Field2=Password
Fieid3=OK
Field4=Help and Options
Field5=Shutdown
Field6=Tab to change field
OR
Field5=Hot-keys: (N)ame (P)assword (H)elp (S)hutdown

Note:

Possibly Field3 (OK) is not needed as pressing <ENTER> should attempt to login
Only show one value for Field5 both together add little extra benefit

All optional items to be moved to a separate screen accessed via Field4 (Help and Options). As this is the area where the user makes choices, it seems appropriate to group them together but separated from the required info of screen1. Additionally, screen2 will be accessed less often than screen1 so the capabilities screen2 provides can be better described due to there being fewer fields than a combined screen. I see this approach as Keep It Simple and Straightforward.

Do not aim for shorthand descriptions. Focus on communicating the message using non-technical language.

On a wider aspect...

Might a pure CLI login/desktop management system produce the wrong impression of antiX? In all walks of life (not just computing) the way something looks is a (the?) major factor in how someone responds to it (including reviewers). Think car bodywork design, furnishings, designer clothes labels etc. It tends to be form first, function second.

From a technical point of view, a CLI login system might have a lot to offer. If it prompts the user to consider it old-fashioned, too technical, or simply too different, it might not be in the best long-term interests of the distro.

It is an unfortunate reality that the way it looks will determine whether or not it is widely accepted just as much as (if not more than) its technical excellence. As much (or more) effort is needed on its appearance as on the way it works.

rust collector · posted: 2013-08-05 14:49

maybe it would be an idea to select login manager when you install, like the sid/testing/stable box in the installer?

I don't how much work it would be to setup.

Smxi has a function like that...

SamK · posted: 2013-08-05 14:58

rust collector wrote:maybe it would be an idea to select login manager when you install, like the sid/testing/stable box in the installer?

I don't how much work it would be to setup.

A reasonable idea but it would result in antiX having two official systems. In that case there will be an increased maintenence overhead as both will need to be supported.

Tom · posted: 2013-08-05 15:53

BitJam wrote:Mock screen shot:

Code: Select all

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Console Desktop Manager

   User:[demo]                         Icons:[SpaceFM]

          dwm           IceWM     XBMC
          e16           [jwm]
          Fluxbox       Razor
      
              [Configure]   [Help]
   
       Arrow keys:  select window manager
   Tab, Shift-tab:  select active area
        space-bar:  select, launch
Hot-keys: (U)ser (I)cons (W)indow-manager (C)onfigure (H)elp    
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

Less info!

If someone doesn't know how to navigate, he can read (H)elp.

Instead of (H) H

Code: Select all

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Console Desktop Manager

   (U)ser:[demo]                         (I)cons:[SpaceFM]

          dwm           IceWM     XBMC
          e16           [jwm]
          Fluxbox       Razor
      
              [(C)onfigure]   [(H)elp]
   
Navigate: Arrow keys, Tab, Space     Hot-keys are marked: (H)elp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BitJam · posted: 2013-08-06 18:59

Thank you for all of the help and suggestions.

Here is another thought. I want to limit the number of window manager I can handle at any one time. Even on a small 640x480 screen, that limit should be above 50. For larger screens the limit will be much higher. I want to put a similar limit on the number of users (and icon managers). Without such limits we move away from being small and nimble because I will have to scroll in order to display them all. Does anyone think these limits would be too onerous?

BTW: Below is a copy-and-paste from a 80x25 terminal window with 44 WMs. There is still room on the screen for the other sections to be displayed. It looks better in color. The grid navigation works well. I'm now working on the auto-layout which prompted the question above. With a small number of WMs, they are spread out but when the number gets large I pack them tighter together to fit more in.

Code: Select all

  ╔════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
  ║                                                                        ║
  ║    E16           XSession      Razor         Fluxbox       E16 GNOME2  ║
  ║    E16-KDE       dwm           XBMC          IceWM         E16 GNOME3  ║
  ║    E16 Fast      E16           XSession      Razor         Fluxbox     ║
  ║    E16 GNOME2    E16-KDE       dwm           XBMC          IceWM       ║
  ║ >>>E16 GNOME3    E16 Fast      E16           XSession      Razor       ║
  ║    Fluxbox       E16 GNOME2    E16-KDE       dwm           XBMC        ║
  ║    IceWM         E16 GNOME3    E16 Fast      E16           XSession    ║
  ║    Razor         Fluxbox       E16 GNOME2    E16-KDE       dwm         ║
  ║    XBMC          IceWM         E16 GNOME3    E16 Fast                  ║
  ║                                                                        ║
  ╚════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Tom · posted: 2013-08-07 05:16

BitJam wrote:I want to limit the number of window manager I can handle at any one time. Even on a small 640x480 screen, that limit should be above 50. For larger screens the limit will be much higher. I want to put a similar limit on the number of users (and icon managers). Without such limits we move away from being small and nimble because I will have to scroll in order to display them all. Does anyone think these limits would be too onerous?

I don't mind, I never had more than 5 WM and 5 users.

SamK · posted: 2013-08-07 10:29

BitJam wrote: It looks better in color.

Continuing my previous feedback about the importance of the look and presentation. The login screen will be the first screen seen after the boot manager screen. It might be worth continuing the thematic elements.

Suggestions
Make the look and use consistent with the boot manager sceen.

Use the same graphic image as a backdrop
Use the same font, typeface and size
Use the same colour scheme
Use the same selection mechanism i.e. highlight-bar-box

This will result in an integrated, coherent, harmonized appearance. It is also reinforced because each is operated in the same way by the user.

BitJam wrote:I want to limit the number of window manager I can handle at any one time. Even on a small 640x480 screen, that limit should be above 50. For larger screens the limit will be much higher.

Accommodating fifty or more choices seems excessive. I've never encountered such a system. Other than for testing purposes the benefit of this seems limited.

Suggestions

Display a boot manager style list of the default WMs shipped in the antiX ISO
IceWM to be identified as the (distro? factory? shipped?) default
Provide for only five additional WMs in the list

I suspect that the total of ten will be irrelevant to the majority of users. In the rare circumstances where an eleventh WM is installed, it may imply that not all of the ten installed are wanted.

I have never used a system with even ten WMs installed. Here, only two of the WMs shipped with antiX-Full are used.

BitJam wrote:The grid navigation works well. I'm now working on the auto-layout...

In view of the reasons and ideas given above the benefit of a grid based mechanism is not obvious. The prospect of navigating it with potentially over fifty choices is not appealing. It will also add to screen clutter.

A simple boot manager style list seems to offer advantages compared to the proposed grid mechanism. The user has encountered it twice, once in the live (installation) media, and one each time the installed system boots-up. Because it is familiar it is reasonably user-friendly. Making use of the familiarity seems an obvious step.

The list of ten (maximum) WMs outlined above might be enhanced to incorporate the"Help and Options" mechanism. While an item in the list is highlighted, pressing F1 might display context sensitive help and a means of selecting any relevant options. I am assuming an option"icon managers" is referring to the desktop shortcut links, but I don't know whether this is correct.

This may be heresy...
From this distance it appears as if the grid mechanism was, from the outset, a fixed point and that the overall design is changed around it to accomodate it as the fixed selection mechanism. The familiar and obvious list mechanism is already proven to be understood by all antiX users. It would seem that its use confers the greatest benefit to the greatest number of users.

rust collector · posted: 2013-08-07 11:34

well, how many wm's you want is up to you, I guess.
If you install less than 10, I guess it would adjust, and show less than 10
Imo, it would be better to let those who want to have 50 wm's be able to have that, than limiting what they can do.

I just hope the grid,list, or whatever resize itself, after the number installed.
That way, it doesn't get in the way, except it you want it to lol

BitJam · posted: 2013-08-11 10:23

Here are some early screen shots taken on a virtual console with a resolution of 800 x 600.

I've artificially changed the number of WMs from 9 to 27 to 54 to show how the display adapts to squeeze more in.

The background image is provided by the fbcondecor kernel patch. The screen size displayed in the lower left corner is in characters. That's a debugging message that won't appear in the final product. I've got shots ranging from 640x480 up to 1280x1024. This fbcondecor theme (called AquaMatrix) does not come in the 640x480 size so that shot (which is not included here) has a different background.

There is still a lot more work to do but I wanted to give you an early peek at what it is starting to look like.

skidoo · posted: 2013-08-12 01:44

If you install less than 10, I guess it would adjust, and show less than 10

Did you mean"if fewer than 10 are pre-installed... ?

Or, is this thing able to autodetect installed WMs, and any additional WMs installed by the user will automatically be listed on this screen?

BitJam · posted: 2013-08-12 02:56

skidoo wrote:Or, is this thing able to autodetect installed WMs, and any additional WMs installed by the user will automatically be listed on this screen?

Exactly. It automatically detects which WMs are installed. This is a feature that is missing from SLiM. We've created workarounds but they require the user to run update-default-desktop after they've added or removed WMs. This is not obvious so the complaints keep rolling in. It is much better for the desktop manager to do it automatically. AFAIK, SLiM is the only one that doesn't. We still use it because it has a very small footprint and few encumbrances. My plan is to make something that is as lightweight as SLiM but with the features people have come to expect. I also wanted to add at least one antiX specific feature. There will be a list of icon managers and, for WMs that are compatible, you will be able to select an icon manager from that list.

I'm hoping the toolkit I develop can be used to make a CLI version of the Control Centre. It could be useful for some of our other CLI tools as well. The
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://invisible-island.net/dialog/#screenshot"
linktext was:"dialog toolkit"
====================================
already exists but it has always seemed horribly clunky to me. Very 1980s. I have already built a list-based toolkit that works in both the CLI and GUI but it is somewhat limited in what it can do. The same program can run in a GUI and in the CLI. Most of the antiX tools I write for users are written using it. Perhaps the best example is persist-makefs. Open a terminal window and run"persist-makefs" and it will run in GUI mode. Give it the -c flag:"persist-makefs -c" and it will run in CLI mode. If you run it in a virtual console, it will always run in CLI mode. Since antiX is supposed to be lean and mean and since we offer X-windows versions and a CLI version, ISTM that essential tools should work in both CLI and GUI.

I'm trying to get past some of its limitations of that first CLI/GUI toolkit and make more use of the available area on the screen in CLI mode.

SamK · posted: 2013-08-12 17:40

BitJam wrote: Here are some early screen shots taken on a virtual console with a resolution of 800 x 600.
[...]
The background image is provided by the fbcondecor kernel patch.
[...]
This fbcondecor theme (called AquaMatrix)...

The screen shots are helpful and a worthwhile improvement over the earlier views.

Background Image
I'm making a working assumption that the choice of background image is at a preliminary stage and still open for discussion. From a cursory look at this theme site it appears others have gone down this route previously:

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://kde-look.org/"
linktext was:"http://kde-look.org/"
====================================

While not suggesting the following theme is adopted by antiX, the principle might be used to obtain the thematic results I referred to in an earlier post. The example is named"BlueCurls KDM4 theme". Abstract from the description

Also see BlueCurls wallpaper, grub screen, fbcondecor(gensplash) and ksplash.

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/BlueCurls+KDM4+theme?content=128159"
linktext was:"http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/Bl ... ent=128159"
====================================

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/BlueCurls+fbcondecor%2Bgensplash?content=128161"
linktext was:"http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/Bl ... ent=128161"
====================================

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/BlueCurls+grub2+screen?content=128162"
linktext was:"http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/Bl ... ent=128162"
====================================

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=128157&file1=128157-1.png&file2=&file3=&name=BlueCurls+SVG+wallpaper"
linktext was:"http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php ... +wallpaper"
====================================

It seems there is an opportunity here to develop an antiX theme to provide a coherent, harmonized appearance.

Title
The phrase"Please Select a Window Manager" is entirely accurate. Its meaning relies upon the user having at least some familiarity with the terminology. This may not be the case for migrating Windows users or non-technically-inclined Linux users.

How about something like e.g."Change the antiX Display Style".

Login
The direction to"Hit <Enter> to login to X-Windows" is entirely accurate. X-Windows may not be widely understood by the groups mentioned in the Title section.

How about something like e.g."Hit <Enter> to login".

Grid

BitJam wrote:...make more use of the available area on the screen in CLI mode.

This is being achieved by putting multiple fields on each line. This works fine when the contents of each field are short. The examples given in the screen shots use only a handful of characters per field.

We are in danger of using shorthand and acronyms to communicate with each other, that is experienced antiX users who are already familiar with the terminolgy. We know what is meant by Window Manager, Fluxbox, JWM, IceWM etc. Can the same be said of a potential new user who is seeing antiX for the first time in order to evaluate whether it is for them?

To an experienced antiX user, or someone who has installed XFCE, MATE or others, it is obvious what to choose. A potential user might benefit from a more meaningful description than simply an acronym. This has already been recognised in the antiX FAQ. Each of the WMs is given a brief but helpful description. If it suitable for the FAQ, is it not also suitable for the actual screen where the choice is implemented? After all, it is likely that a potential user will not be familiar with the FAQ and may not know that one exists.

Adjusting to account for a varying number of columns is compounding the matter. Reducing to two per line may produce a preferable result as it will accommodate a more meaningful description. Of course, reducing the number of columns moves closer to a list view, which is probably the most readily understood layout for a potential user as it gives the maximum area for a description.

Centering the text in each field produces an unkempt look to my eyes. It also makes it look more uninviting when lots of fields are displayed. Left aligned text gives a more ordered, structured appearance.

Tom · posted: 2013-08-12 18:49

What do you think about an alternative view, which lists the WM in categories like heavy, lightweight, no category?

dolphin_oracle · posted: 2013-08-12 20:47

I actually come in the opposite direction from SamK pertaining to the names of the wm's. I think using what things are called is important. If you want to make something easier on a new(er) user, then marking which environment is the default in a different color or something might be nice. I mean, if you want to try something other than the default, then perhaps you are ready to learn the names. But SamK makes a good point on the complexity, and simply marking which is the default may clear that up.

I'm unclear if you gave a default login screen and then you make a selection to change the wm, or if you always get the selection. personally, I think having a default login, then selecting the wm screen if desired is cleaner, but I like that you have the login direct from the wm selection screen in any case.

SamK · posted: 2013-08-13 08:36

Tom wrote: What do you think about an alternative view...

dolphin_oracle wrote: I actually come in the opposite direction from SamK pertaining to the names of the wm's. I think using what things are called is important.

Rather than opposing directions I think we are broadly saying the same thing.

My idea is to display both the name and a brief expalanation in the same field. A single field would take the form WMName - Brief Description.

dolphin_oracle wrote: ...make something easier on a new(er) user...

This is a key point. The login and WM sub-systems are obligatory elements of antiX. Because they are also elements with which the user interacts, their user interface needs to be designed with potential new users in mind.

For example, the user's choice of WM tends to reflect their preferred way of interacting with the system. Many users will see this as a fundamental requirement on which they will judge the suitability of antiX. For a non-technical user this can be a make or break point for the distro. This is likely to result in the WMs shipped within antiX being tried as part of the initial exploration process of a potential new user. It seems appropriate therefore to design the mechanism to be obvious and friendly for users encountering it for the first time.

dolphin_oracle wrote: ...then marking which environment is the default in a different color or something might be nice.

I made a similar suggestion in a previous post in the thread.

SamK wrote:Suggestions
...
IceWM to be identified as the (distro? factory? shipped?) default
...

It may have been missed or discarded but the FAQ identifies the default WM in a similar manner.

dolphin_oracle wrote: ...if you want to try something other than the default...

Here we differ marginally.

For the reasons given above, my proposal is that the selection field for each of the WMs in the antiX ISO follows the form of WMName - Brief Description and that the default WM is identified.

Where a user manually installs a further WM or DE, only the name (no description) is appended to those available for selection. This seems reasonable as the name must have been known and used in order to conduct the installation. Also installing an additional WM or DE is less likely to form part of an initial assessment process.

dolphin_oracle wrote: I'm unclear if you gave a default login screen and then you make a selection to change the wm, or if you always get the selection. personally, I think having a default login, then selecting the wm screen if desired is cleaner, but I like that you have the login direct from the wm selection screen in any case.

I also support the separation of the login screen from the options screen and offered the view in my first post in this topic. It will be helpful to clarify this particlar aspect.