| Summary: | RFC: Make connecting to / disconnecting from current Activity via SLC easier | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Unmaintained] Active | Reporter: | Thomas Pfeiffer <thomas.pfeiffer> |
| Component: | Share Like Connect | Assignee: | Marco Martin <notmart> |
| Status: | RESOLVED UNMAINTAINED | ||
| Severity: | wishlist | CC: | active, thuhien.cmuhttt2 |
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | unscheduled | ||
| Platform: | Meego/Harmattan | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
|
Description
Thomas Pfeiffer
2012-03-19 16:08:24 UTC
"Fania and I agree that this is a too long sequence for that common action." how long is too long? or rather, how short is quick enough? "Move the "Current Activity" menu entry to the top level" this implies that the point of "connect" is really "connect to activity", which is incorrect conceptually (despite the current implementation having only one implemented target: activities) "because connecting to / disconnecting from the current activity is much more common than connecting to other activities." that is not enough. what is the relative value of connecting to other activities? what about when there are other items in "connect" besides "activity"? what happens to the thought process when a choice about activity is presented before the person expresses that they wish to act on an activity? this is probably rather harder to grasp than it should be because connect only has one entry right now (to activity). (In reply to comment #1) > how long is too long? or rather, how short is quick enough? It's more about relative than absolute length. Connecting to the current activity is one of the most important usecases of SLC, since it relates to _the_ central concept of Plasma Active / Contour. It's part of the typical workflow of collecting stuff in an Activity. It's certainly not the coolest or most innovative way to use SLC, but that does not make it any less important or common. Therefore if it takes 50% more actions to complete than other, less common actions, something's not right. > "Move the "Current Activity" menu entry to the top level" > > this implies that the point of "connect" is really "connect to activity", > which is incorrect conceptually (despite the current implementation having > only one implemented target: activities) Why does it imply that? It only implies "Connect to...", and I don't see what's wrong with that. You can still have "Connect to... - Current Activity - Other Activities - My Facebook Profile - This Contact - ... " But even if we find that "Connect to" is still to narrow, it's only a matter of labeling, not of the menu hierarchy itself. And the current "Activities" implies "Connect to" as well. > "because connecting to / disconnecting from the current activity is much > more common than connecting to other activities." > > that is not enough. what is the relative value of connecting to other > activities? what about when there are other items in "connect" besides > "activity"? what happens to the thought process when a choice about activity > is presented before the person expresses that they wish to act on an > activity? Look at the "file" menu any given application. Chances are high that it contains "Save" as well as "Save as..." entries. Of course "Save as..." would theoretically suffice because the user could still save with the same name. But "Save" (which implies "Save to the file you opened") is a convenient shortcut because it's much more common to save to the file you opened than to another one. The fact that there are two different entries does not imply that the purpose of the whole File menu is to save, though. It does, in fact, not imply anything. The only thing it does is provide a convenient shortcut to a common action. > this is probably rather harder to grasp than it should be because connect > only has one entry right now (to activity). I don't think this has anything to do with this. A valid concern would be that the "Connect" menu might get too long. If we have enough entries in there that this would be an issue, we can still think about maybe using something like a split button to save vertical space. But offering a shortcut to the most common item on a submenu on the main level is actually common practice. |