[ubuntu-studio-devel] menu layout

Kaj Ailomaa zequence at mousike.me
Wed May 20 07:17:12 UTC 2015

On Wed, May 20, 2015, at 12:06 AM, Len Ovens wrote:
> After thinking about htis all day while working I have some more ideas.
> In keeping with what is shown at:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/FeatureDefinitions/UbuntuStudioMenu
> I have no problem with renaming sub menus in audio. I still think it is 
> right to keep them as submenus because there are so many audio 
> applications that we include and that users will add to that.
> One thought I do have is that on an audio workstation it may make more 
> sense to default unknown "Audio" programs to audio production rather than 
> to media playback with the idea that someone interested in Studio is more 
> likely to add a tool that belongs there than a player. I would also like 
> to rename mixers to something that would include audio utilities that are 
> not used very often. Or maybe we can just put such things in there to
> keep 
> from cluttering up the main audio menu. (Ideas?)

There is a freedesktop category named "player", which is intended for
playback applications.
Many of those are for both audio and video though, but that just means
they will end up in two different menus.

The subcategory "player" is for both Audio and Video.

> On to Graphics...
> Assuming that the wiki layout means for the sub categories to be sub 
> menus... I dissagree. I feel that someone who uses mostly any one of
> these 
> sub categories will find it fiddly and more steps to get work done.

I have no problem with keeping some of the graphics subcategories as
separate menu items.
Just as I mentioned in a previous post - the freedesktop categorization
doesn't need to be hierarchical.

> I do like separation and agree that having separate menus may not be 
> needed. So, looking at the Audio Production menu we have now. You can see 
> that it is devided into four sections with a divider line between each 
> one. I would like to do the same thing here. I looked at the total number 
> of applications involved and do not think it would be too much to look at 
> all at once.
> So:
> Graphics
>  	installer
>  	divider
>  	2d graphics apps inlined
>  	divider
>  	photographic apps inlined (photography is 2D graphics)
>  	divider
>  	3D graphics apps inlined
>  	divider
>  	anything else (scanning is probably only one app or two)

I'd rather first try using submenus (using a menu at all is a nuisance,
if you ask me - using your mouse to navigate is time consuming).
I've always said that the best way to educate the user is through
documentation, both written and in video, not by using the menu as an
education tool for how to find your workflow.
But, having labels to describe what an application is for is helpful in
the end. How will someone know which applications are specifically
targeted at photography for example, if all graphics apps are in the
same menu?
If it is very important to keep photography in an easy to access menu,
then we keep it the way we had it originally.

> This means that any one of these applications is easy to access, but they 
> are grouped to be easier to find. I don't want a photographer to dismiss 
> Studio because photography is stuck in a little corner as a submenu of 
> graphics. I want Studio to be a first choice for photographers too. It is 
> the same with the way we have set up the audio menu. Anything that we 
> expect to used every time someone works on audio is top audio menu. 
> Anything in submenus below audio should be things used only once in a 
> while.
> I have not put publishing in there at this point because I feel that our 
> publishing workflow does not fit. Writing a book is about text not 
> graphics. Printing a CD of audio does not belong in graphics either. In 
> fact we have very few things in publishing at all and most almost fit 
> better in "office". The few things we want to add to it (CD/DVD
> authoring) 
> almost fit better back in Audio and Video.

Yes, there may be confusion about what publishing actually means.
It is a mix of Office and Graphics, and the actual publishing part is in
formatting text and images for publication - usually ebooks, posters and
covers, and that type of thing.
Though web pages and books may sometimes serve the same purpose, there
is a difference in how you create them. One is by using graphical
formatting tools, the other by using code for formatting (html, css).
But, in the end, the goal is the same.

> I am almost questioning having a publishing workflow at all, at least for 
> the purpose of writng books (ebooks or paper) or creating webpages (which 
> we do not really support at all right now anyway). The original purpose
> of 
> the publishing as a workflow (in Studio) was "electronic typesetting" but 
> it seems that the meaning in most people's mind is really 
> "distribution"... creating CD/DVDs etc.

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree on that burning CDs is a publishing tool.
More of a utility.

And, I could see both audio, graphics and video all have a subcategory
for utilities. 
But, for audio, I feel strongly that we keep mixers in their own
submenu. It's really important that users are able to find those easily,
since not all users realize they have a specific mixer for their audio

More information about the ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list