[sugar] [PATCH] Journal able to use "open with" for activity bundles

[Eben Eliason]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Jameson Chema Quinn
<jquinn at cs.oberlin.edu> wrote:
> Sorry, I am stuck in windows land today, so I cannot confirm anything. I
> will respond based on how I recall things, and I'm pretty sure, but cannot
> vouch 100% for what I will say here.
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Jameson Chema Quinn
>> <jquinn at cs.oberlin.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Actually, I disagree with adding "Start" separately to the secondary
>> >> palette as this will appear redundant beneath the already existing
>> >> "Start" label in the primary palette.  The better solution (and I
>> >> think, the expected behavior) is to make the primary palette clickable
>> >> when the palette is anchored, such that clicking it enacts the action
>> >> of the button it is attached to.
>> >
>> > I agree that this is how palettes should work (of course, not the issue
>> > here).
>> >
>> > However, I don't understand your opposition to repeating the "start"
>> > option
>> > in the submenu. Any journal item already repeats the default option in
>> > this
>> > list; doing the same for activity bundles is only consistent. If we are
>> > going to change this, it is a separate patch.
>>
>> Could you please clarify exactly what it is you are trying to do, and
>> exactly what parts of the GUI it's affecting?  I've taken two stabs at
>> this, and it seems neither are correct.  I read the code, but I don't
>> know what context it sits in.  The secondary palettes that appear for
>> activity icons (bundle or instance) all contain a "Start" or "Resume"
>> option, respectively.  The button in the toolbar of the detail view
>> reads either "Start" or "Resume", also as appropriate.  None of the
>> secondary palettes anywhere in the system repeat the default action of
>> the button within the secondary palette, as far as I'm aware, as this
>> would be redundant. (It would be even more redundant (in other words,
>> functionally, instead of only visually) if the primary palette were
>> clickable.)
>
> This patch is for the secondary palette on the start/resume button on the
> details view. Say you have a picture you made in Paint. You'd have an arrow
> button in details, primary palette "resume" (= Paint), secondary palette
> "Paint" or "TuxPaint". This is not verbally redundant, but is obviously
> redundant in the sense that one of the options in the secondary palette is
> equivalent to the simple button push. It is this redundancy that I was
> copying, as my feelings were that inconsistency would be confusing, and that
> intuitive accessibility is a higher priority than non-redundancy.
>
> If you disagree, I am not really attached to this idea. I just didn't
> realize it was controversial (and clung to that blind-spot even when it
> meant assuming you misunderstood). I'd vote for redundancy, but it is a weak
> vote.

I see.  Well I think I vote against it in the current implementation,
actually, since the redundancy (side by side, no less) could actually
be confusing (which one do I want!?  what's the difference!?).  My
first instinct was to think that it might be OK if we used a submenu,
to clarify the action more as I mentioned before.  After considering
this, however, I find that it's actually much clearer /not/ to do
that.  The reason that Paint is repeated (as per your example) is that
the Paint instance can be resumed by Paint, or other supporting
activities.  Including Paint itself in the list provides clarification
of the action by revealing the name of the default activity, which
otherwise wasn't revealed.  We could take a hint from Apple and append
"(default)" to the first in the list, with a separator, to make this
more evident.

On the other hand, an activity bundle (not an "instance") can be
started, or resumed by another supporting activity.  Opening the
bundle as an object with another activity is actually a very different
action from starting a new instance of it.  The former creates a new
version of the bundle in the same "thread".  The latter creates a new
instance/entry in the Journal in it's own brand new "thread".

I think we should do without the redundant "Start" option in the menu.
 I think this is still consistent with the other entries:  You either
create a new instance of the activity, or you open the bundle (as an
object) with some other activity.  You don't in general open the
bundle (as an object) with itself (eg. you start a new painting...you
don't open the paint bundle in Paint).  The exception to the rule is
an activity like Develop, which can indeed open itself.  However, that
will be handled naturally by the system, since Develop claims to
handle the bundle type already.  This is still very different from
saying "Start", which would create an /emtpy/ develop project; it
would instead open up to reveal the source code /for/ Develop. Make
sense?

- Eben

> (BTW: again, I have no way to test this right now, but I think that the
> journal list view item palettes are also redundant. Don't the secondary
> palettes have options for run, copy, delete? And run is the same as just
> clicking the object's icon?

Yes!  This is slightly different, though.  There are two "types" of
"things" (hear me out).  There are "objects" (people, activities,
devices, etc.) and "buttons" (in toolbars, activities, etc.).  The
primary palette of an object identifies the object itself.  The
primary palette of a button describes the action of the button.  In
other words, the action of a button is part of its identity, as
evidenced by the fact that the primary palette contains a description
of its action.  The same is not true for objects, which have a list of
actions independent of their identity.  As a general rule, we always
make the default action (the one taken when an object is clicked) the
first option in the list in the secondary palette; it's not explicit,
but it will hopefully subconsciously convey the rules for interacting
with object in various contexts.

Another way to think about it is that the redundant action in the list
is "merged" with the primary palette, which takes on the clickable
nature of the option that's left out.  The primary palettes for
objects won't be clickable, since they are not directly associated
with any action.

> BTBTW: This is actually a place where a nested
> "open with" menu makes even more sense, and I could write such a patch if
> this one clears.)

That would be great.  Thanks!

- Eben