Text 3952, 210 rader
Skriven 2005-05-01 22:21:34 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 3951 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Translucent windows
===============================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0575_01C54E9C.22064C70
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yep. Office System 2003 so it's been out about 2 years now.
Rich
"Ellen K." <72322.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message =
news:pncb71hhtqfbcfld3c9tdjcm980j5d60eq@4ax.com...
That sounds pretty nice actually. Is that feature already in the
versions out on the market?
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:28:20 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
<427324ee@w3.nls.net>:
> For something where you want up to date status a status line would =
make sense. For notifications which are not scheduled why reserve space = that
is mostly unused. The scenario to which I was referring are new = email
notifications presented by Outlook. When email arrives I get a = translucent
notification with several lines of info including the = sender, subject, and
the initial text. The notification is translucent = so it doesn't interfere
with what is on the screen. It's large enough = to contain useful information.
It stays on the screen only a short time = unless I find it interesting and
mouse over it at which point I can = delete it, flag it, open it, etc. I
hadn't thought of it before I saw = it but took to it immediately. It is both
useful and non-intrusive and = a definite improvement over what existed
previously where there was an = audible notification but I would have to switch
focus to see if the = message was worthy of attention.
>
>Rich
>
> "Ellen K." <72322.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message =
news:chr471559bbmo77pf61mj231j89tjtn7tl@4ax.com...
> If it were me, I would put the output of what I was tracking in a =
tiny
> (=3D height of one line of text) window and put that at the top or =
bottom
> of my screen.
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:22:51 +1200, dmhills@attglobal.net (Don =
Hills)
> wrote in message <bv0bCtgaXa+c092yn@attglobal.net>:
>
> >In article <426ef92f$1@w3.nls.net>, "Rich" <@> wrote:
> >> I don't see what you describe as intuitive. I'm accustomed to
> >>translucent windows that are translucent so you can see both the =
content
> >>of the translucent window and of the underlying window. When you =
mouse
> >>over them the window becomes opaque. Even without becoming =
opaque, your
> >>light metaphor is not one I would expect. When I click on a real =
glass
> >>window I expect to act on it even though I can see through it. =
Don't
> >>you?
> >
> >No. To me, a translucent window is a ghost. It isn't really there.
> >If it became solid when I moused over it or clicked on any area =
within it,
> >it would severly impact my use of the windows behind it. I could =
accept the
> >borders being always clickable as a means of giving focus, and any =
part of
> >the window on the base desktop (not overlaying another window). To =
me, this
> >would provide the closest UI to the way "standard" windows work.
> >
> >I'm assuming that one would be monitoring the translucent window =
while
> >working on a solid one. Does anyone think that the opposite would =
be more
> >intuitive - monitor the solid window(s) while working in the =
translucent
> >one?
------=_NextPart_000_0575_01C54E9C.22064C70
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Yep. Office System =
2003 so it's=20
been out about 2 years now.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Ellen K." <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:72322.1016@compuserve.com">72322.1016@compuserve.com</A>&g=
t;=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:pncb71hhtqfbcfld3c9tdjcm980j5d60eq@4ax.com">news:pncb71hhtqf=
bcfld3c9tdjcm980j5d60eq@4ax.com</A>...</DIV>That=20
sounds pretty nice actually. Is that feature already in=20
the<BR>versions out on the market?<BR><BR>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:28:20 =
-0700,=20
"Rich" <@> wrote in message<BR><<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:427324ee@w3.nls.net">427324ee@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR><BR>&=
gt; =20
For something where you want up to date status a status line would =
make=20
sense. For notifications which are not scheduled why reserve =
space that=20
is mostly unused. The scenario to which I was referring are new =
email=20
notifications presented by Outlook. When email arrives I get a=20
translucent notification with several lines of info including the =
sender,=20
subject, and the initial text. The notification is translucent =
so it=20
doesn't interfere with what is on the screen. It's large enough =
to=20
contain useful information. It stays on the screen only a short =
time=20
unless I find it interesting and mouse over it at which point I can =
delete it,=20
flag it, open it, etc. I hadn't thought of it before I saw it =
but took=20
to it immediately. It is both useful and non-intrusive and a =
definite=20
improvement over what existed previously where there was an audible=20
notification but I would have to switch focus to see if the message =
was worthy=20
of attention.<BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR>> "Ellen K." =
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:72322.1016@compuserve.com">72322.1016@compuserve.com</A>&g=
t;=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:chr471559bbmo77pf61mj231j89tjtn7tl@4ax.com">news:chr471559bb=
mo77pf61mj231j89tjtn7tl@4ax.com</A>...<BR>> =20
If it were me, I would put the output of what I was tracking in a=20
tiny<BR>> (=3D height of one line of text) window and put =
that at the=20
top or bottom<BR>> of my screen.<BR>><BR>> On =
Wed, 27 Apr=20
2005 20:22:51 +1200, <A=20
href=3D"mailto:dmhills@attglobal.net">dmhills@attglobal.net</A> (Don=20
Hills)<BR>> wrote in message <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bv0bCtgaXa+c092yn@attglobal.net">bv0bCtgaXa+c092yn@attglob=
al.net</A>>:<BR>><BR>> =20
>In article <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:426ef92f$1@w3.nls.net">426ef92f$1@w3.nls.net</A>>, =
"Rich"=20
<@> wrote:<BR>> >> I don't see what =
you=20
describe as intuitive. I'm accustomed to<BR>> =20
>>translucent windows that are translucent so you can see both =
the=20
content<BR>> >>of the translucent window and of the =
underlying=20
window. When you mouse<BR>> >>over them the =
window=20
becomes opaque. Even without becoming opaque, your<BR>> =
>>light metaphor is not one I would expect. When I click =
on a real=20
glass<BR>> >>window I expect to act on it even though I =
can see=20
through it. Don't<BR>> >>you?<BR>> =20
><BR>> >No. To me, a translucent window is a ghost. It =
isn't=20
really there.<BR>> >If it became solid when I moused over =
it or=20
clicked on any area within it,<BR>> >it would severly =
impact my=20
use of the windows behind it. I could accept the<BR>> =
>borders=20
being always clickable as a means of giving focus, and any part=20
of<BR>> >the window on the base desktop (not overlaying =
another=20
window). To me, this<BR>> >would provide the closest UI to =
the way=20
"standard" windows work.<BR>> ><BR>> >I'm =
assuming=20
that one would be monitoring the translucent window =
while<BR>> =20
>working on a solid one. Does anyone think that the opposite would =
be=20
more<BR>> >intuitive - monitor the solid window(s) while =
working=20
in the translucent<BR>> =
>one?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0575_01C54E9C.22064C70--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|