ROS design suggestion

The place to bring up any design issues, or post your own creations

Moderator: Moderator Team

Do you like it?

YES, I really like it
66
81%
it's not much better than the old one
12
15%
NO, I don't like it at all
3
4%
 
Total votes: 81

mf
Developer
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:37 pm
Location: Eindhoven, NL
Contact:

Post by mf » Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:06 pm

White light is all the colors in the spectrum at once, yes. That's the idea of additive colors.
It compiles, let's ship it!

Crappish
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: Tampere, Finland

Post by Crappish » Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:32 am

MadRat wrote:I'm always forgetting, isn't a white 'light source' none of the colors of light and white 'color' is all of the colors at once?
Light, electric colour: Additive colour mixing (RGB); white = all colours
Pigments: Subtractive colour mixing (CMYK); white = none of the colours
Can't provoke anyone? Why bother posting?

Crappish
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: Tampere, Finland

Post by Crappish » Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:59 am

oiaohm wrote:Crappish this is a bit of a complex read.
http://www.darksky.org/links/pauleylhh.pdf
In what ways complex? How nice approach from you yet again... Again dragging things through mud.

It's purely theoretic publication and the author himself notes that. Single reasearch won't prove anything, it just creates basis for theory.
As the author puts it, "The hypothesis that...", "may be one
reason...
", "Until more research directly links...", "it may be wise to consider..."

I've personally slept over four years on pretty much blue bedroom and I had absolutely no problems in falling asleep or dozing off after waking up. Hence the sceptsism that you simply can't sleep after seeing blue, since I never had any problems. I usually had problems waking up and getting up from bed.

Psycosomatic symptoms, I'd say.
Can't provoke anyone? Why bother posting?

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:10 am

Ok your lucky or just not noticing or not bright enought blue light from walls most likely or in the about 10 percent with hard to reset body clocks.

This that document was one of many on the subject but contained what was going on in the eye. I did not think posting links 1000 page Plus reseach papers times 20 would be nice of anyone. This stuff has been tested after this problem was suggested.

Its your body clock if that is effected. Even if you do sleep your sleep might to be right to repair your body.

This paper was early on with the problem. There have been lot more research papers on it. Blue is used in the treatment of jet lag and the like.

Ie at first exposing people to bright white light worked but if person did it alot that could end up with long term eye damage and large ammouts of blindness. More modern studys found that the same brightness but only blue has the same effect and the person only get blind in the blue spectrum not all of the spectrums. Yet Red and Green don't anywhere near as well needs to be extreamly bright to reset most likely do eye damage. Then they found lower brightness Blue worked just as well as bright white.

Yes blue is a colour to be careful with. In partical blue light sources or pointing real bright lights against blue surfaces. Ie some act as light coverters if it did not contain enough blue light before it reflected it will now.

Exposer at the right time is a god send for shift workers. Ie if I am exposted to blue at X time in somewhere between 6-4 hours time body will line up for a good sleep. Note the ofset.

From http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095611/html/43.html
People with Alzheimer’s disease are just as likely to be asleep as they are to be awake any time during the day or night. We have used the knowledge gained about spectral sensitivity to the circadian system to provide Alzheimer’s sufferers with blue light treatment early in the evening. After blue light treatment, they not only slept longer but also consolidated their sleep and were more likely to be asleep at night and awake during the day.
Also from same source
Perhaps the impact of low light levels in buildings can have long-term effects that are not so obvious. Older people, for example, commonly have what is called phase advance syndrome. They tend to go to bed at 8:00 p.m. and rise at 4:00 a.m., roaming around before anyone else is awake. Bright light exposure in the evening will delay their sleep, allowing them to sleep later in the morning and rise at a more appropriate time.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/season ... er/MH00023
Intensity. To work well, the light you receive must have the right intensity. Light box intensity is recorded in lux, which is a measure of the amount of light you receive at a specific distance from a light source. Light boxes for light therapy usually produce between 2,500 lux and 10,000 lux. Typical therapy is at 10,000 lux. In contrast, the lighting in an average living room in the evening is less than 100 lux, while a bright sunny day may register 100,000 lux.
Reflected light from a wall painted blue most likely will not be crossing reset of threshold. Problem is that CRT/LCD screens are a lot brighter light source than normal wall reflection. Ie some LCD screen are up to 400 lux 4 times the average room light and some CRT screens can be around 250 Lux over 2 times average room light ie this beats glare from other light sources. Yes treatment normaly starts around 2,500 lux and has to get up to 10000 lux is most cases. Depending on your eyes it can be alot lower. Amount of time exposed is a factor too. 6 hours sitting behind a computer is alot longer than the treatment exposer time from 15 mins to 2 hours max. Ie some people only require 15 mins at 2,500 lux some of these people will be effected with the lower exposer rate of 250 lux over 150 mins over 2.5 hours. Generaly not recommended other studys showed exposer past 2 hours starts stuffup the clock ie the clock does not know if it should reset or not so half resets. Ie the short the better. Better the reset. 10000 lux is a good point to stop at to stop eye damage.

Blue is the colour light you require to play with your body clock and is used to fix problems or create them. Exposer bright enough blue light at the wrong times is bad. Ie if you want to sleep in the next four hours. If doing shift work and required to be a wake can be handy take a hit every 3.5 hours stay away stop 2 hours before the end of shift and avoid sun light so you don't get a extra reset and have trouble going to sleep backup plain nice heavy blue blocking glasses just in case you are late leaving and the sun is going to be up. This is slightly different with each person ie almost each person has different slightly start points to their sleep cycle.

Lot less coffee required. Still playing with the clock appear to be bad for you long term health unless there is some medical reason to play with it. The long term effects are not completely under stood what points in time cause them.

Or you could be in the 10 percent on average from comparing many studies whos body clock is extreamly hard to reset. Also suffer worse from jet lag then anyone less. I hope you are not because that can be a real pain.

Yes eye strain is not the only reason from the eyes to go away from you computer every 45 mins.

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat » Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:49 am

Here's another NEXTstep clone:

Image
Last edited by MadRat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

Crappish
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: Tampere, Finland

Post by Crappish » Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:44 am

oiaohm wrote:Ok your lucky or just not noticing or not bright enought blue light from walls most likely or in the about 10 percent with hard to reset body clocks.
Well, my girlfriend had an obsession for blue so there was lot of blue introduced. From blue lamps and walls to all blue stuff around the flat.

Well, all I can say that it didn't work for me that way at all. But I let it rest for now.
Can't provoke anyone? Why bother posting?

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

How much power should a theme Have.

Post by oiaohm » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:16 am

We really need to answer this.

Fvwm/enlightment under Unix can be completely shaped by a theme.

Start menu moved and changed. Winamp is another example of extreamly powerful themes.

Yes keep Microsoft them compad ie ms themes don't change much muck with icons fonts and the like not the interface itself.

Should a theme under reactos beable to alter the complete look and feel of reactos or not? That is the question for code builds of the UI.

Please Crappish as a Linux person I am extreamly use to this power. Ie my machine switchs from something like a mac threw to something like Window and then something like Next. Now do window trained people want this.

Note high power theme system can solve alot of fights if you don't likely load your theme.

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Re: How much power should a theme Have.

Post by Floyd » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:13 am

oiaohm wrote:We really need to answer this.

Fvwm/enlightment under Unix can be completely shaped by a theme.

Start menu moved and changed. Winamp is another example of extreamly powerful themes.
well as i suggested earlier it could all be done using an .xml schema if you really wanted to customize the start menu layouts and organization. i still think that the default should look close to the basic windows start menu, however.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Viator
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:53 am

Post by Viator » Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:59 pm

I dont think many people are arguing that the *DEFAULT* should look totally different than your standard windows faire. Maybe a few tweaks to make it a little better but keep the layout basic. What as indicated above most of us want it the OPTION to control the ui in a more powerful manner than the ms "themes" allow. And that needs to be built in. Just because windows doesnt include this doesnt mean we cant/shouldnt. And NO it shouldnt be implimented over more important functionality.

Ratteler
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:31 pm

Post by Ratteler » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:13 pm

Honestly, if this kind of desktop design is what floats your boat, more power too you.

The problem here, IMHO is that R|OS needs to emulate windows as closely as possible, and people... myself included, what to see improvmets to Windows.

It's great mental masterbation to imagine what the UI might be, but until all the core OS stuff is done to allow for 3D Applications Etc, I say use the KISS rule.

We all have our own Idea of what a perfect DTE is.

Pesonally, I would like to see the entire UI implemented in a Realtime 3D environment. This would not only look great, but also take advantage of the powerful GPU's in most modern systems.

Ideally "Icons" would be OBJ files, and virtual desktops could be handled as "camera points" on your "desktop landscape". Each camera point could have a custom, user defined, lighting model with colored lights to idividual moods to each desktop.

While the environment would be truely 3D, the actual desktops would be what I call 2.5D. At least at first. The 3D elelments would be treated as 2D. You would not be able to move icon elements in Z depth, only XY as a traditional desktop. We don't want to break the traditional 2D desktop paradign because people aren't used thinking in 3D yet.

Instead of a Taskbar you would have HUD that included your clock, "Start", Quicklaunces, and Active Tasks.

There have been some technology experiment that show things like Font handling, and Vector drawing are greatly improved when handled in a 3D environment by a GPU.

This might require a very big core change to the underlying windowing system. In Linux terms it would be like replacing X11 and having all calls to it executed in 3D space emulating 2D space.

On the other hand, all this might be as easy as modding the recently GPL's Quake3 Engine to be a DTE.

As much as I like this idea... I DON'T want to see it be part of REACTOS. At least not now. The focus of the development team should be running every windows compatible program. PERIOD.

When that is acheived we can all start to implement and suggest our improvments to turn it from and Open Source Windows clone into a true innovative next GEN OS.

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:55 pm

Viator wrote:I dont think many people are arguing that the *DEFAULT* should look totally different than your standard windows faire. Maybe a few tweaks to make it a little better but keep the layout basic. What as indicated above most of us want it the OPTION to control the ui in a more powerful manner than the ms "themes" allow. And that needs to be built in. Just because windows doesnt include this doesnt mean we cant/shouldnt. And NO it shouldnt be implimented over more important functionality.
well, i've also suggested (helpfully i might add :-P ) that themes like xp's should be useable but have the "theme" file be basically a structured .zip (can't find the thread right now though). as .zip is a very common format, the efficiency of compression isn't a big priority these days (what with huge hard drives and all). and the structure would be something like this:

./ theme file that defines layout
./sounds/
./graphics/
./icons/

and so on

but we've been debating on color scheme, button layout and what the default start menu should look like.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:25 am

Here's a nice twist to the original Explorer: http://www.gpsoft.com.au/Preview/preview.html (Its FREE it for 30 days.)

Here's some screenshots:

Layout of DIRECTORY OPUS 8
Image
SINGLE PANE DISPLAY, DETAILS LIST view
Image
SINGLE PANE DISPLAY, TREE view
Image
DUAL PANE DISPLAY, TREE view
Image
DUAL PANE DISPLAY view
Image
FILM STRIP view
Image

IMAGE PREVIEWER functions
Image
LISTER functions
Image
*************************************
Go Huskers!

Ratteler
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:31 pm

Post by Ratteler » Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:41 am

I didn't like Opus in my Amiga days. I'm sure not going to like it now.

Jaix
Moderator Team
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Sweden, Växjö

Dir Opus on the Amiga

Post by Jaix » Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:43 am

I had Dir Opus on the Amiga, I liked it a lot!

Wierd
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:12 am

Shell Replacement, Anyone?

Post by Wierd » Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:56 pm

So.. You dont like the scrollbars, buttons, radio circles, checkboxes, layout of MS window's "windows"...


Want to change them completely?

Shell replacement is your friend!

What can shell replacement do for you?

Well-- For one, it lets you totally redesign the shell space if you want to, and if you decide that you want to alter a few system files (Comdlg32.dll, Comctrl.dll, etc...) and totally change the "widget" set.

The low level support is capable of being added this way, to do just about anything you want to the GUI's appearance. But, as stated in the "Enough about the UI" thread, the decision on the default UI flavor has allready been made.

If you want to make a shell replacement project, by all means! DO SO! :P

If your replacement shell can work on windows, it should work fine on ROS as well.


Here is an article some guy made about his experiences using alternative shells. As you can see, simply replacing the shell opens the door to all kinds of new functionalities.

http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=48

All ReactOS really needs do, is offer support to load these kinds of 3rd party shell environments, and you can do just about anything to the look and feel.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest