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 694699 - top padding on app selection frame is too tight
top padding on app selection frame is too tight
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-shell
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-shell-maint
gnome-shell-maint
3.8?
Depends on:
Blocks: 695026
 
 
Reported: 2013-02-25 19:28 UTC by William Jon McCann
Modified: 2013-08-27 14:23 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
screenshot (1.02 MB, image/png)
2013-02-25 19:28 UTC, William Jon McCann
  Details
screenshot (95.90 KB, image/png)
2013-03-02 13:52 UTC, William Jon McCann
  Details
layout guidance (8.42 KB, image/png)
2013-03-02 17:43 UTC, Allan Day
  Details
updated layout guidelines (14.26 KB, image/png)
2013-03-03 00:00 UTC, Allan Day
  Details
fixes top padding and the Icon size (924 bytes, patch)
2013-08-24 23:18 UTC, florian-baeuerle
none Details | Review
Icon spacing with patch applied (95.78 KB, image/png)
2013-08-24 23:19 UTC, florian-baeuerle
  Details

Description William Jon McCann 2013-02-25 19:28:04 UTC
Created attachment 237384 [details]
screenshot

The top padding on search results selection frame is too tight.
Comment 1 William Jon McCann 2013-03-02 13:52:26 UTC
Created attachment 237794 [details]
screenshot
Comment 2 Allan Day 2013-03-02 17:43:59 UTC
Created attachment 237825 [details]
layout guidance

Having done some experiments with this, the attached layout like a good way forward.

It might make sense to deal with bug 691578 at the same time.
Comment 3 Allan Day 2013-03-03 00:00:53 UTC
Created attachment 237857 [details]
updated layout guidelines

One thing we need to do is make sure that the application names are able to be wider than the icons. This will prevent some of the ellipsisation that we currently see in the application view.

I've also added a variant that will work with larger text, if we decide to go ahead with bug 695026.
Comment 4 Reinout van Schouwen 2013-03-04 16:23:47 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)

> One thing we need to do is make sure that the application names are able to be
> wider than the icons. This will prevent some of the ellipsisation that we
> currently see in the application view.

Ellipsisation is one thing, but ellipsising two different launcher titles with identical icons, so that they can't be told apart any more (different versions of the same program for instance) is a bigger problem IMHO.
Comment 5 florian-baeuerle 2013-08-24 23:18:28 UTC
Created attachment 253030 [details] [review]
fixes top padding and the Icon size

The patch fixes the top padding and the Icon size according to your Guideline.

I guess the text spacings will be slightly less trivial to fix, unfortunately I could not figure out how to influence the text paddings for now.
Comment 6 florian-baeuerle 2013-08-24 23:19:53 UTC
Created attachment 253031 [details]
Icon spacing with patch applied

And this is what it looks like.
Comment 7 florian-baeuerle 2013-08-26 19:03:14 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Having done some experiments with this, the attached layout like a good way
> forward.
> 
> It might make sense to deal with bug 691578 at the same time.

Just wanted to point out that I submitted a patch there that fixes the different Icon border-radius in picker and search results.
Comment 8 Carlos Soriano 2013-08-27 14:23:07 UTC
Thanks Florian for your work! Looks pretty nice!

But secretly I was doing a project, the app picker redesign, and I did already a patch for it that covers more cases (like the dash, the spacing between the label and the icon) and also I adjusted the value to the needs the new app picker demands to fit 4 rows of icons in 900px height screen resolutions.
Sorry for not told this in the bug, I didn't see this bug report before.

The new bug report that covers that is:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=706081