[Sugar-devel] [Design] Ad-hoc networks - New Icons

[Eben Eliason]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de> wrote:
> On 08/11/2009 03:49 PM, Eben Eliason wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2009 11:50 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2009/8/11 Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it would help, to have a new icon for the ad-hoc network to
>>>>> distinguish them. Could be a badged wireless network one? Or is the
>>>>> mesh
>>>>> icon appropriate? Or something completely new?
>>>>
>>>> I think new icons would be best, to distinguish from the mesh. I think
>>>> we can expect mesh support again soon ;)
>>>
>>>  From the user POV they are the same I guess. A local network, that does
>>> not
>>> need any infrastructure.
>>
>>> Though, the mesh on the XO is handled automatically, the ad-hoc network
>>> requires user interaction to create it. I wonder if we ever will see a
>>> user
>>> using both (not at the same time) on the same machine. To think about the
>>> visual clash, at least.
>>
>> Perhaps we could use the mesh icon with a little XO badge, to indicate
>> that it's functionally similar to the "real" mesh, but enabled by a
>> specific XO. Thinking about this now, it might be the case that Tomeu
>> had built this functionality as an extension of the wireless network
>> device in the Frame; Should it be an extension of the mesh device
>> instead, based on its perceived similarities to that feature more than
>> an AP?
>>
>> Eben
>
> Yes, as of today, it is an extension of the wireless network frame device.
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OoKpv4QinxI/SiFiDO2RsAI/AAAAAAAAACU/go8n8S6rrE0/s1600-h/soas-create.png
>
> From the similarities, I agree, a badged mesh icon would work well to
> demonstrate that.

I suppose I see arguments in both directions. A badged AP icon would
also make sense. Ben's question about the persistence of the network
in the absence of the creator is also important to answer.

> Another question is the behavior: Gary and some others were wondering if we
> should fallback to an adhoc network automatically, if we are not connected
> to an AP.

This might bias us towards treating it more or less like the mesh. For
what it's worth, it seems like the ability for separate classes (for
instance) to create separate networks would be a benefit in terms of
network reliability.

Eben