GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 607577
[enh] better adhoc icon
Last modified: 2012-09-11 18:34:14 UTC
Bug first reported in launchpad > https://bugs.launchpad.net/humanity/+bug/438111 "The icon (monitor next to the network icon) is confusing and potentially misleading. It should not be displayed in the applet menu." Other feedback on the icon presence> Alexander Sack wrote: > the separate section is an obvious approach, though showing it as > "Computer to Computer" would not fix the problem you mentioned above: > that some ad hocs are still good for internet, while some normal are > not. > > Anyway. this is topic for karmic+1; if design team has interested in > defining where the new upstream nm-applet goes we should discuss that > early in cycle. > Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > Alexander, is there a way to tell, without connecting to each of them in turn, > which "ad hocs are still good for internet [and which] are not"?
No, there is no way to tell what network, either Ad-Hoc or infrastructure, is "good for internet". I'm still not clear *why* the icon is confusing or misleading?
(In reply to comment #1) > No, there is no way to tell what network, either Ad-Hoc or infrastructure, is > "good for internet". > > I'm still not clear *why* the icon is confusing or misleading? [AFAIK , From the discussion with the UX folks] While Humanity was reviewed for Ubuntu , the UX folks noticed the icon in the menu and felt the presence of the icon did not clearly communicate, either: - why the particular connection had an icon while the rest didnt. - connecting to the network might pose security risks if the user does not know [who owns?] the connection. We went though several revs of the icon, but none communicated "this-is-a-connection-from-another-computer-which-might-or mightnot-be-a-security-risk" One idea was using a /!\ in the icon , but it seemed an unnecessary warning for connections which aernt harmful. A broken security shield seemed misleading too. This is a problem more due to not having an universal symbol for "ad-hoc connections" Finally, it was decided that the best way to represent the connection was by being verbose and dedicate a separate section for those connections labeled either "Ad-hoc connection" or "Computer-to-computer connection". I'll try to ping the UX team and ask them to shed some more light on this issue.