[sugar] perceived sugar performance
Tue Apr 29 14:23:25 EDT 2008
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Michael Stone <michael at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:58:06PM +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net> wrote:
> > > In a perfect world, you would be right. But that doesn't seem to be
> > > the world we are living in, because so many apps seem to need a banner
> > > while they launch (openoffice, gimp, banshee, etc.).
> > >
> > > I'm not 100% sure that we need such a strong feedback during
> > > launching, but just saying that we'll make everything fast enough and
> > > slow activities won't bite us is a bit courageous, at least.
> While "perfect" may be the enemy of "good", I do not believe that the
> present state of mediocrity is either inevitable or "good enough".
> However, I'm not presently submitting patches, so what do I know?
> > * It reinforces the zoom metaphor.
> Perhaps the implementation will convince me. Luckily for you, I'm not
> the UI designer. :)
> > * It deals with the problem of children clicking on 2-3 activities at
> > the same time, which proved to be a real issue in the field (will
> > faster activities address this? not sure).
> If you actually want to rate limit activity startup - why not just rate
> limit activity startup, perhaps with a "cooldown" effect?
So, I don't necessarily want to impose a hard rate limit. It may very
well be the case that I know that I want Terminal and Chat open,
pronto, and that they both launch fairly quickly for me even when
launched at the same time. It might also be the case that I know I
want 3 or four activities open for a project workflow (say, Record,
VideoEdit, and AudioEdit (assuming they existed)), and I know they
take a minute or so. I might want to launch them all and go get a cup
> Instead, if you want to make it clear that people should be using one
> activity at a time, why not queue up launch requests and allow
> cancellation of all items in the queue?
This seems like a much more interesting option to me, if the
predominant feedback from others opposes the launch mechanism I'm
proposing. Perhaps this is even a wise thing to do regardless of
which feedback mechanism we use. Focusing on the first activity
launched before wasting time to launch a bunch in parallel might
indeed be better. (Again, only truly better if we can prevent the
remainder of the launching activities from stealing focus when they
More information about the Sugar-devel