[Dextrose] [Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Reflect internet connectivity in the 'Network' frame icon

Michael Stone michael at laptop.org
Mon Feb 14 12:11:11 EST 2011

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 at 10:12:40 -0500, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Michael Stone <michael at laptop.org> wrote:
>> So what network affordances [1, 2] are we supposed to make discoverable? :)


I don't want to hijack any threads this month, so, if the following isn't worth
your time, please ignore it and move on to more pressing matters.

> Let's not get too academic. 

FYI, this remark stings rather more than I think you intended. Perhaps you
have a constructive criticism to substitute?

> Reading back the thread:
>  - can we reach the "internet"? (or it might be a controlled WAN)
>  - can we reach an XS?
> In both cases, ping + HEAD can work. 

No argument that ping + HEAD are useful and usefully cheap. Frankly, for the
two cases you mention above, HEAD alone should suffice.

> Keep it simple, this is for a simple, low cost (cognitive _and_
> computer-resources wise) indicator.

Anish started a thread with a [DESIGN] tag. I took that to mean, in part, that
he wanted feedback about the interplay of his idea with the Sugar HIG and the
broader intended Sugar UX and I tried to recast the discussion in those terms. 

To that end, I asked whether the goal of the network UI is to reassure people
whose network is already working or to help people whose network is broken,
e.g., by making the tools for diagnosing the failure more discoverable. I also
tried to provide sufficient detail to establish the feasibility of both
approaches and to support robust and concrete debate. 

Finally, regarding your "keep it simple" comment above: what do you know that I
don't that convinces you that all of the above is a waste of time?



More information about the Dextrose mailing list