How do we feel about this revised layout for System Tray settings?
1 Like
this is a version of how it was in plasma 5 where general had the size options (general is always the first tab)
and entries had all the entries.
the plasma 6 way saves you a click since the size options that used to be the only thing under general are not really worthy of their own tab.
1 Like
Not all clicks are created equal. How often do people actually change their global panel icon size? Itâs usually a âset and forgetâ toggle. Optimizing to save a single click on a setting you touch maybe once a year doesnât seem worth cramming the UI and restricting the vertical space for the âEntriesâ list, which users have to scroll through much more frequently.
If your supposition that users interact with and scroll through the entries list more frequently is true, then the current UI saves a click required to navigate to that list, since it isnât on the first page that the dialog shows when opened.
1 Like
Ah, I see, my mistake. I thought you were bringing back the entirety of the old UI that had the general page first. In that case I rescind that argument.
1 Like
To me itâs not so much about how we feel with a change, but how does this help the user. We previously had discussions around very sparse sets of settings where there is probably just one checkbox in the kcm. This leads users to click a few more times before they can see this minimal amount of components to interact with. This does not translate well when users want to go fast.
In addition to that, condensing sparse kcms into bigger ones, reduces searching for users, it puts settings in a better context with other elements that are relevant to the discussion. At the time we saw that the advantages were there and decided to go that route.
Proposing going back to that should have some good reasoning on the side of user experience. I am not seeing that right now.
Why is this a good change for users?
3 Likes
to your point then, i would suggest keep it all under a single âGeneralâ tab and just move the size stuff down to the bottom below the list of entries, next to the Apply button
Panel Icons page looks very empty though. Maybe you could put a preview of icons there.
By moving settings theyâll rarely interact with out of the way of the ones theyâll interact with frequently. I already answered this question in response to skyfish; not all clicks are created equal. Optimizing for arbitrary click-counts over logical organization makes zero sense, and so far nobody has actually made an argument to the contrary.
In what way are appearance settings relevant to visibility statesâŚ? This is not a coherent rationale, it is literally just word saladâŚ
Clarity. As it stands, there are three appearance settings and only the first of them is prefixed as âPanel Iconsâ, which is a necessary workaround to visually group them that isnât needed if a parent menu establishes that context organically.
But itâs not a general tab, the amount of entries completely overshadow the rest of the settings. Itâs an entries tab with drifters that have no home.
Thatâs actually really smart. Iâm not sure how you would implement this for the icon size, but I have to imagine direction and spacing would be very easy to mockup for the KCM.
Iâm dying to hear your other ones.
i get what you are saying but the standard with any settings page in plasma is that it starts with a General tab⌠and since you are in the settings page for a system tray, the âgeneralâ thing you are there to do is set the visibility for (and someday maybe position of) the entries in the system tray.
put the âfloatersâ as you call them at the bottom and a General tab and it works just fine⌠there is no reason to nitpick over the name.
Doing that would create a nested scroll area, something my architecture avoids completely.
i donât see how?
it would literally just be a flip of the current General page by moving the 3 âfloaterâ settings to the bottom of the same page down by the Apply button.
Scrolling the entries would have no effect on it.
but iâm actually fine with how it is in plasma 6 and think itâs an improvement over plasma 5
The âEntriesâ section scrolls independently of its parent container.
the number of âentriesâ requires scrolling no matter which tab its on, there are just too many of them to fit otherwise.
Clarity. As it stands, there are three appearance settings and only the first of them is prefixed as âPanel Iconsâ, which is a necessary workaround to visually group them that isnât needed if a parent menu establishes that context organically.
I am failing to see how more items to click leads to more clarity. I donât think thatâs the case. Maybe take a look at the concept âParalysis of Choiceâ and what leads to it.
1 Like
