GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 653015
"Screen" vs "Displays"
Last modified: 2012-03-27 03:14:16 UTC
I reliably get these two panels confused. You can say "but one of them is under Personal and the other is under Hardware", but I still get them confused.
(In reply to comment #0) > I reliably get these two panels confused. And still you are lucky - in other locales, it's even more confusing, e.g "Bildschirm"/"Bildschirme" (german), "Pantalla"/"Pantallas" (spanish) ...
Was the reason why we moved away from "Brightness & Lock" more than the fact "Screen" is shorter?
It indeed confuses a lot of people with some translations, so yeah, let's change it to something that removes that confusion
Adding Jon to answer Jakub's question in comment 2.
As very recently proposed in the mailing list (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnomecc-list/2011-November/msg00030.html). I am proposing to move those two items on other places and get rid of this panel. I would move Brightness into Hardware>Display and Lock into System>User Accounts after the related Autologin option.
I'm working on a patch for this.
(In reply to comment #6) > I'm working on a patch for this. Can we see designs for what you are proposing please?
Hi Allan, The design document Christian worked on is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ILTJDiDCd25Npt2AmgzF8aOnZZECxTfM0hvsbWT2BxA/edit?ndplr=1&pli=1#heading=h.75gvhmawe612 It doesn't show all the changes in screenshots, I'll attach some mockups here.
Created attachment 205673 [details] Current control center options
Created attachment 205674 [details] Proposed control center options
Created attachment 205675 [details] Current display options
Created attachment 205676 [details] Proposed display options
Created attachment 205677 [details] Current power options
Created attachment 205678 [details] Proposed power options
Created attachment 205679 [details] Current user account options
Created attachment 205680 [details] Proposed user account options
Created attachment 205681 [details] [review] In progress patch used to generate mockups
In my opinion the weakest part of moving things around is the screen lock controls in the user accounts dialog. As you can only control your own screen lock it's a bit odd what to do when selecting another user. To me this dialog has a bit of an odd mix of user preferences and system administration. Christian and I were also discussing the merits of the "dim screen" option. In this patch I've focussed on moving all the current options to new locations than assessing the selection / type of controls used as that can be tackled in later patches.
Thanks for adding the design materials, Robert. It would be helpful if these were hosted upstream - it's best to keep everything together on the wiki. That way other GNOME designers can participate. I'm not convinced about these changes, largely because I think that moving these options around will make them harder to find, but I'd be interested in hearing different opinions. * What has screen lock got to do with users? This is particularly bad in single user systems. * While dim screen does have a relationship with power settings, many people might not be aware of it. If their screen is dimming and they want to disable it, they might well head head towards a screen or display panel rather than a power one. * Brightness in displays seems like an odd fit to me. Most of the options in that panel will never be used, except for when a secondary display is attached. Displays is primarily a hardware thing, whereas brightness is, imo something of a personal preference that may change depending on conditions - this is the original motivation for having screens and displays separate, I believe.These new designs have brightness below a bunch of technical gobbledygook which people often won't be touching. Other options I can think of to fix this bug: * Rename screen to something else, like the original Brightness and Lock * Repurpose (and perhaps rename) Displays to solely focus on the secondary display case
Hi Allan, Dim the dim can have 2 very different purposes: 1) notify that the display is going to be turned off soon, because turning off the screen is quite disruptive aestetically but also might take some time to wake it up and in some cases also require to authenticate again. 2) Save power. As you can imagine these are very 2 different cases, so a perfect solution might be hard to find. I think we have 2 options: 1) prioritizing purpose n.1, maybe without even giving an option. The screen will dim 1 minute before turning off. 2) prioritize purpose n.2, move it in the power settings and leaving it turned off by default. Lock I agree this is probably not ideal. From the documentation you can see we added a Privacy panel. Do you reckon there would be a better fit? Brightness First of all, Displays focuses exclusively on secondary displays only in laptop case. Which of course is a common case which is good to prioritize. Also Brightness can be used for differente purposes, so it is difficult to place it. You need to remember though that in most of laptops the brightness can be controlled by specific and labelled keys, so maybe doesn't have to be super accessible and the relation with the Display hardware remains strong. Overall "Brightness and Lock" are two very different concepts one involving comfort of usage and power saving the other one security. I really don't see how they can stay together.
FWIW, I agree with Allan that the suggested changes are not really logical. (In reply to comment #19) > Other options I can think of to fix this bug: > > * Rename screen to something else, like the original Brightness and Lock Maybe the best solution, but not completely satisfying as-is. "Brightness" doesn't mean "turn off screen" to me. And the two terms seem to be completely unrelated. > * Repurpose (and perhaps rename) Displays to solely focus on the secondary > display case The problem I can see with this solution is that screen resolution is really tied to the displays you're using. For example, you may need to lower resolution so that your GPU supports two stacked screens; or you may want to use a resolution common to both screens. And people shouldn't have to deal with screen resolution, except in that case. A third solution would be to create a "Screen and Power" panel, and keep "Display" as it is. All current power and screen settings are linked: - Dimming saves power, and the biggest reasons why you do it (or don't). We used to have different dimming options for battery/plugged statuses. (Calling the panel "Screen and Power" would make it easy for people to spot this setting, which was a concern you raised.) - Locking occurs when the screen is turned off, and when computer is suspended. It's more logical to put it with power than only with screen. - Most obvious, turning off the screen is really made to save power.
(In reply to comment #20) ... > Lock > I agree this is probably not ideal. From the documentation you can see we added > a Privacy panel. Do you reckon there would be a better fit? Impossible to say without seeing the design. Privacy is a complex concept. There's a design page for a GNOME Privacy and Sharing panel: http://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/PrivacyAndSharing ... > Overall "Brightness and Lock" are two very different concepts one involving > comfort of usage and power saving the other one security. I really don't see > how they can stay together. Well that's fine, but what's the solution? (fwiw - while brightness and lock certainly cover different territory, they are united in that they are both personal choices rather than hardware configuration (ie. make my device work), and they are also both connected to the screen.) The other, more drastic, option that I didn't mention earlier would be to restructure the settings around a distinction between hardware devices on the one hand and personal preferences on the other.
(In reply to comment #22) > (In reply to comment #20) > ... > > Lock > > I agree this is probably not ideal. From the documentation you can see we added > > a Privacy panel. Do you reckon there would be a better fit? > > Impossible to say without seeing the design. Privacy is a complex concept. > There's a design page for a GNOME Privacy and Sharing panel: > > http://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/PrivacyAndSharing After further thoughts, I don't think Privacy would be the right place. But it would be interesting to see how the Privacy panel will evolve. Never say never. > ... > > Overall "Brightness and Lock" are two very different concepts one involving > > comfort of usage and power saving the other one security. I really don't see > > how they can stay together. > > Well that's fine, but what's the solution? (fwiw - while brightness and lock > certainly cover different territory, they are united in that they are both > personal choices rather than hardware configuration (ie. make my device work), > and they are also both connected to the screen.) > > The other, more drastic, option that I didn't mention earlier would be to > restructure the settings around a distinction between hardware devices on the > one hand and personal preferences on the other. I think this is the problem, while the sections Personal and Hardware are separate, I wonder if the user makes such distinction or even if they read the headers in the first place. We can probably factor some user testing here.
(In reply to comment #21) > > * Rename screen to something else, like the original Brightness and Lock > Maybe the best solution, but not completely satisfying as-is. "Brightness" > doesn't mean "turn off screen" to me. And the two terms seem to be completely > unrelated. Which I think it's a huge issue. > A third solution would be to create a "Screen and Power" panel, and keep > "Display" as it is. All current power and screen settings are linked: > - Dimming saves power, and the biggest reasons why you do it (or don't). We > used to have different dimming options for battery/plugged statuses. (Calling > the panel "Screen and Power" would make it easy for people to spot this > setting, which was a concern you raised.) > - Locking occurs when the screen is turned off, and when computer is suspended. > It's more logical to put it with power than only with screen. > - Most obvious, turning off the screen is really made to save power. Brightness is not exclusively related to save power. While, because its accessibility via keys, its location can be deprioritized, I still think that the Display panel would be the more neutral and somewhere the user would easily relate. I think the word "Screen" at All Settings level would still attract users who just want to change the resolution. If you remember one of the issues was that in some languages it was translated in the same way as Display.
(In reply to comment #23) > I think this is the problem, while the sections Personal and Hardware are > separate, I wonder if the user makes such distinction or even if they read the > headers in the first place. We can probably factor some user testing here. I agree, and I think this is a problem with the control center shell in general. But I do think that the distinction between personal and hardware can be a useful one, if we design the control center shell around it. Personal preferences is functionality that users might initiate contact with in a repeated manner (eg. 'I want to change the background', 'I want to change the brightness of my screen'). Hardware settings, on the other hand, are only interesting if a) the hardware changes or b) something won't work. Personal options should be within easy reach. Hardware should be a step away but accessible when needed. They should also be accessible through notifications when state changes require them.
(In reply to comment #25) > (In reply to comment #23) > > I think this is the problem, while the sections Personal and Hardware are > > separate, I wonder if the user makes such distinction or even if they read the > > headers in the first place. We can probably factor some user testing here. > > I agree, and I think this is a problem with the control center shell in > general. > > But I do think that the distinction between personal and hardware can be a > useful one, if we design the control center shell around it. Personal > preferences is functionality that users might initiate contact with in a > repeated manner (eg. 'I want to change the background', 'I want to change the > brightness of my screen'). Hardware settings, on the other hand, are only > interesting if a) the hardware changes or b) something won't work. > > Personal options should be within easy reach. Hardware should be a step away > but accessible when needed. They should also be accessible through > notifications when state changes require them. But frequency of access and personalization are 2 different axis. The different to what is systemic (for all users) and personal is definitely stronger. It would be good to explore options, but I feel this has to be for a next release. Obviously keeping the ball rolling ;)
Having the brightness in the Display panel is a no-no. First, from a purely technical stand-point, because when we have a brightness slider, we just don't know which device it is for, and it doesn't match a "screen", but a monitor. So in a clone mode, you would show a single brightness bar even though you could only control the brightness of one display. Secondly, from a design standpoint. Displays is a "put stuff on the right screen" panel. It isn't a panel where you would look for personalisation, and quick changes. About the screen lock switch not fitting in the users panel, well, it's supposed to go in the Sharing and Privacy panel instead. Just need somebody to design one and implement it ;)
I committed this: commit a2a9db029fa5c6641b50a0d79e79f6e37c186883 Author: Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net> Date: Fri Jan 20 13:19:48 2012 +0000 screen: Rename icon to "Brightness and Lock" So as to avoid name clashes with the "Display" panel. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=653015 Please open a new bug about removing the Screen/Brightness and Lock panel altogether.
Hi Bastien! (In reply to comment #27) > Having the brightness in the Display panel is a no-no. Can't we discuss it? ;) > First, from a purely technical stand-point, because when we have a brightness > slider, we just don't know which device it is for, and it doesn't match a > "screen", but a monitor. So in a clone mode, you would show a single brightness > bar even though you could only control the brightness of one display. From what I can see, it's true, the current implementation doesn't make that distinction, which is not ideal. Moving the brightness in the Display panel instead will allow to have that, because we have already per device options depending on the selection. > Secondly, from a design standpoint. Displays is a "put stuff on the right > screen" panel. It isn't a panel where you would look for personalisation, and > quick changes. "put stuff on the right screen" panel, I wonder if the users see it this way. Do you have any data about people changing brightness from that panel instead of through special keys? As I said earlier: 1) it might not need to be so accessible (it would be still very easy to be found in Displays). 2) The separation between Personal and Hardware might be so evident to the user with the current grid layout. > About the screen lock switch not fitting in the users panel, well, it's > supposed to go in the Sharing and Privacy panel instead. Just need somebody to > design one and implement it ;) I opened that discussion earlier, might be a better place in the future.
(In reply to comment #28) > Please open a new bug about removing the Screen/Brightness and Lock panel > altogether. Done, thanks: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668351
Ops, (In reply to comment #29) > 2) The separation between Personal and Hardware might be so evident to the user > with the current grid layout. might NOT be so evident :) TGIF! ;) chr