<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>User Interface on John Stowers</title><link>https://johnstowers.co.nz/tags/user-interface/</link><description>Recent content in User Interface on John Stowers</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:57:03 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://johnstowers.co.nz/tags/user-interface/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Conduit UI Experiments - Part Two</title><link>https://johnstowers.co.nz/2008/08/01/conduit-ui-experiments-part-two/</link><pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:57:03 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://johnstowers.co.nz/2008/08/01/conduit-ui-experiments-part-two/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you everyone for their &lt;a href="http://www.johnstowers.co.nz/blog/index.php/2008/07/31/conduit-ui-experiments/#comments" rel="noopener"&gt;constructive comments&lt;/a&gt;
 on my &lt;a href="http://www.johnstowers.co.nz/blog/index.php/2008/07/31/conduit-ui-experiments/" rel="noopener"&gt;previous post&lt;/a&gt;
. A number of posters suggested the rounded boxes that conduit uses to group dataproviders were too bold, unnecessary, or both. I would like your opinion on which of the following four choices is the most suitable as a replacement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://johnstowers.co.nz/images/imported/conduit-boxes.png"&gt;&lt;figure class="img"&gt;
 &lt;img src="https://johnstowers.co.nz/images/imported/conduit-boxes-small.png" alt="Four different styles showing how to differentiate between dataproviders" loading="lazy" decoding="async"&gt;&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;em&gt;Which is the best; 1,2,3 or 4?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Number four is the current implementation. I am leaning towards the first option as a replacement. From testing it seems to look the most consistent on different themes, and I believe it is the most suitable background to place (future) drag and drop hints on.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Conduit UI Experiments</title><link>https://johnstowers.co.nz/2008/07/31/conduit-ui-experiments/</link><pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:55:47 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://johnstowers.co.nz/2008/07/31/conduit-ui-experiments/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2008-July/msg00202.html" rel="noopener"&gt;discussions regarding my proposal&lt;/a&gt;
 for inclusion of Conduit into GNOME 2.24 seem to be going OK. The inevitable issue of Conduit&amp;rsquo;s user interface has been raised, and it is good to see some constructive comments being posted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is a bit of a simplification, but I see basically three schools of thought with regard to the user interface for synchronizing things. What follows is a brief discussion of the pros and cons of each approach.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>