After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 140764 - pad icons, so they are more clickable
pad icons, so they are more clickable
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 583273
Product: gnome-panel
Classification: Other
Component: notification area
unspecified
Other Linux
: Low enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Panel Maintainers
Panel Maintainers
Depends on: 621341
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-04-21 18:56 UTC by Chad Miller
Modified: 2010-07-14 17:18 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.9/2.10



Description Chad Miller 2004-04-21 18:56:30 UTC
On large displays, the individual icons become hard to distinguish and the user
is prone to hit the wrong "button" as they're so close together.  (Meyer's and
Fitt's Laws probably apply.)

Allowing the user to set some gap between the icons would help a lot.
Comment 1 Chad Miller 2005-01-10 16:15:49 UTC
Rationalle:  There are Some Number of easily-addressable (by a mouse) Regions on
a mouse-pad, regardless of the screen's resolution.  Making each icon (not the
graphic only, but also the padding space around it) be no smaller than one of
those Regions would enhance usability.

----

Don't make this a configurable value.  Instead, use the size of the screen to
infer how far apart icons should be.
Comment 2 Vincent Untz 2005-01-10 16:23:25 UTC
> Instead, use the size of the screen to infer how far apart icons should be.

Could you give an example? Suppose I have a 1024x768 screen, what padding should
there be?
Comment 3 Chad Miller 2005-01-10 17:02:56 UTC
I'm hoping that a usability expert (I am but a coder) might have an answer as to
how big of an area is easily reachable.

Here's my first, untested guess:

notification_icon_size = 16  #pixels
size = min(screen_x_size_as_pixels, screen_y_size_in_pixels)
magic_ui_areas = 32  #regions

total_padding = max(0, (size / magic_ui_areas - notification_icon_size))
padding_per_side = floor(total_padding / 2)


Results:
1600x1200 : 10
1280x1024 :  8
1024x768  :  4
800x600   :  1
640x480   :  0

Of course, magic_ui_areas is just a number I made up.  A better formula may not
be linear, or may take into consideration X' DPI value, mouse acceleration, or a
configuration setting in Desktop Prefs->Accessability where the user can set her
value in an  Adroit<=========>Maladroit  continuum.
Comment 4 Teppo Turtiainen 2006-03-26 12:31:07 UTC
I'm using 1600x1200 and still trying to make do with just one panel and I would absolutely hate it if we started wasting panel space by padding icons.
Comment 5 Andrew 2006-12-02 22:18:58 UTC
This is a maturity issue - Windows, Os X, just do things like this by default, no added complexity, settings, sliders, etc...  The icons placed in the panel should have some amount of padding to create a cleaner look.  Icons run into the vertical edges of the panel - my gut reaction is "unpolished."

Will this make a difference in day to day use?  Nope, but I do think it's a sign of maturity and polish.

How bout 4-5 pixels of padding all the way around any icon placed in the panels so they don't run into top and bottom edges, or each other?

-- A
Comment 6 Dan Winship 2010-07-14 17:16:24 UTC
583273 has a patch

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 583273 ***