[sugar] frame activation

[Walter Bender]

What we need to do is come up with a clear definition of the test we
want to preform. We can figure out how t get the right bits in place
after that. The variables seem to be new user vs experienced user to
test discoverability and the various time-constants for the default
delay: perhaps 0, 1/3s, 1/2s, 1s, infinite?

-walter

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can we set up an actually experiment with some children? Uruguay,
>> Paraguay, and Peru all agreed to help. This seems like a obvious place
>> to start.
>
> Yes, that would be helpful as well.  In order to make that feasible,
> we need to find a good way to let them install builds for testing
> purposes.  I suspect that Scott might have been considering this use
> case when he mentioned breaking the builds into development/unstable,
> testing, QA, and stable.  Ideally we'd provide a singed testing build
> so that the kids don't all need to request dev keys to get us the
> proper feedback.  Can anyone provide insight onto how/when we might be
> able to do this?
>
> - Eben
>
> ps I did help Carla get a dev key and install a testing build
> including the new activity launching feedback and the control panel,
> so that she had at least one machine for testing these features and
> the delay on the Frame.
>
>
>> -walter
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I've played with it a lot.  I think that a 1/3 second delay goes a
>>> long way to preventing accidental activation, but likely isn't long
>>> enough to prevent discovery, especially in a classroom full of kids.
>>> If everyone tests it out with a delay in this range and agrees, we
>>> could institute a delay between 1/3 and 1/2 second by default and
>>> probably provide a better out-of-the-box experience.
>>>
>>> - Eben
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Bert's point is a good one and a further argument for keeping it
>>>> configurable. On my XO, the touchpad is flaky but there is a frame
>>>> key. On my HP, the touchpad is reasonably stable, but I need to
>>>> remember an undiscoverable keyboard binding. So I would like to have
>>>> almost opposite behaviors depending upon the hardware.
>>>>
>>>> -walter
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>>>>> On 10.06.2008, at 12:15, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do we have any feedback regarding frame activation and the new control
>>>>>> panel option?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it ok to ship with hot corners on by default and let the users
>>>>>> change it if they wish?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As much as I hate the mouse activation, I still think this is a
>>>>> sensible default. On the XO we have a Frame key, but on other hw
>>>>> discovering the frame could be a lot harder.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Bert -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sugar mailing list
>>>>> Sugar at lists.laptop.org
>>>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sugar mailing list
>>>> Sugar at lists.laptop.org
>>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
>>>>
>>>
>>
>