Interesting thread I found which has a few ideas for the system settings: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=96374

I agree at least partly with davidwright on the "Simple effect setup": The "Improved Window management" and "Various animations" checkboxes are pretty useless, since it's impossible to guess which effects are behind those, so users do not even know what they're selecting.

Having a simple way to change the desktop switching animation makes sense to me, however that should be integrated with the task switcher settings, as the two are very similar from a user's perspective.
This brings me to another point in desperate need for improvement: Conflicts between different places for configuring the same thing. The prime example for that is task switcher: In "All effects", you can activate or deactivate various task switcher effects, but this setting has zero effect. It does precisely nothing. The only setting that has an effect on task switcher effects is the Task Switcher settings module, which, ironically is in a different group right now!
It took me a direct conversation with Martin Gräßlin himself to find out why on earth switching task switcher effects on or off in "All Effects" did nothing. The explanation was purely technical : "All Effects" simply queries the system for which effects are available and dumps them all in the dialog, whereas the task switcher only cares about what's configured in the Task Switcher module. This makes zero sense from a user's perspective, and thus it has to change.

I think we need to step back and stop proposing solutions for right now until we completely understand the issues at hand. Right now there we are attacking our personnel pet peeves with the interface.
Things we are look at:
High level organization
Internal Module organization
User focused design

Issues:
Consistent Module design.
Organizing the internal module design to where users would expect.
Rules to decide what modules go where in what categories.
Rules for deciding when user use overrides when it an option should go into a place other the "Normal Place"

Just fyi: I just saw a screenshot of the new Compositing KCM (which has been split out of the Desktop Effects KCM). Here it is: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/media/u ... siting.png
As can be seen, the "Simple Effect setup" has gone, so we don't need to worry about that anymore

And there are plans to make "mutually exclusive groups" possible in the effects module, so that my "pet peeve" about desktop or task switchers would be fixed as well.

And verbalshadow: I agree with you on what the tasks at hand are

First of all: When everyone writes different suggestions, the situation will get very messy. So I can only underline the decision to split this discussion in the following:

1.) General Design & Implementation of a Module

• For the general Design I would like to refer to viewtopic.php?f=285&t=120006 as this idea could be adopted for System Settings.
  
• Furthermore https://user-prompt.com/kde-hig-survey- ... le-groups/ should be considered for coherent module implementation.
  
• The position of a search fields should be determined and be consistent across Modules.
  
• The position of buttons should be clearly defined in a common way (some modules use horizontal alignment, some use vertical alignment for buttons like "Get new ...", see viewtopic.php?f=83&t=96374).

2.) Modules Organization

• The general categories of Systemsettings should be determined and clearly defined for example (what comes to mind quickly thinking about it):
  
  • Hardware (Configuration of hardware like Printers, Mouse, Touchpad, Sound etc.)
    
  • Network (everything network related that can be configured differently for every user like Bluetooth, proxies, network management settings etc.)
    
  • System (everything that affects more than one user like System time, software management, user management, System Security related stuff, ev. firewall settings affecting all users, but would better suit to network ...)
    
  • Identity/Personal (personal settings and management of for e.g. user account, kwallet and instant messaging accounts)
    
  • Appearance (Application appearance, Plasma etc.),
    
  • Global User Settings (Shortcuts, Universial access, Nepomuk/Baloo search, File Associations, Notifications, Kwin window rules etc.))
    
• After the categories are determined, modules with clearly defined aims should be assigned to them
  
• Next would be Submodule Organization (Clear guidelines when to use a submodule and when to use tabs. Maybe it is more difficult to find common guidelines than working from module to module. However, there are modules where the split in submodules does not make sense to me, like the "Network Settings", where much space is wasted with extremly tiny submodules, that fit all in one module. Submodules are for example appropraite if you have a module "Application Appearance" where sensible submoduels would be for example "Icons" and "Theme".)

After all that has been done, the individual modules can be designed and implemented.
Keep in mind, this will need some time and it should be done sustainable, because the logic behind wont change very quickly. We are now in the situation that we have many modules that allow configuring things in a stable way, but completely incoherently.
It has been stated various times, that different modules are written by different people and there will always be different opinions, but I see some real hope in the VDG regarding this issue.
I think it does not require deep knowledge of the underlying technology if the creators of the latter simply provide the configuration options in an abstract way.
That way a very small group of people could use the provided api to redesign the modules.

kdeuserk wrote:I think it does not require deep knowledge of the underlying technology if the creators of the latter simply provide the configuration options in an abstract way.
That way a very small group of people could use the provided api to redesign the modules.

Changing layout of individual modules should be fairly easy to do even for people not involved in the specific project, and since with QML a clear separation between model and view needs to done anyway, the choice of controls should be fairly free as well.
Mixing and matching of options which now reside in different modules into one will probably be the hardest part.

colomar wrote:Just fyi: I just saw a screenshot of the new Compositing KCM (which has been split out of the Desktop Effects KCM). Here it is: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/media/u ... siting.png

So now there are going to be two modules that are handling the desktop effects? That's not an improvement in my eyes.

Also, 'compositing' is an almost meaningless word to the average user, so to bury the one check box people might need to use in it, the on / off box, is a particularly bad idea IMHO.

David: I agree immensely - the idea of the split is to simplify usage but the effect is ruined by naming the technical thing as something easier to do than the non-technical thing.

BUT this is one of those "see it as something growing" things. Let's just carry on and create a suggestion for the changes WE want and then see if we can persuade the devs this way.

davidwright wrote:So now there are going to be two modules that are handling the desktop effects? That's not an improvement in my eyes.
Also, 'compositing' is an almost meaningless word to the average user, so to bury the one check box people might need to use in it, the on / off box, is a particularly bad idea IMHO.

I talked to Martin G. and now it makes sense to me.
- The Compositing module contains advanced technical stuff which people who don't know what Compositing is should not touch anyway. I do not agree with Jens that "Compositing" sounds like something with easy stuff in it. Compositing is a highly technical term which I assume most users don't even know.
- Everything "average users" would change is in the other module. We still have to find a good name for it, but it should be a "non-technical" name. Therefore, non-technical people should go to the non-technical module, whereas people who have enough technical knowledge to know what compositing is should go to that module to configure it.
- The "on/off" switch will go away in Wayland, because in Wayland compositing as such cannot be turned off. I asked Martin whether people who don't want any effects are worse off if they switch them all off in the Effects KCM but don't touch the Compositing KCM and therefore leave compositing on in general. He said that in most cases (i.e. all but cases with broken drivers or very old GPUs), they're better off that way.

So for me the separation is clear and sensible: One KCM (Compositing) with the highly technical "advanced" stuff, one KCM (currently "Desktop Effects") with the settings that "normal" users care about.

Well that makes more sense now I suppose. I'm still not in agreement with it being split out into a separate module, it could have stayed in an advanced tab, but there you are. It's better than what's currently in place, and that's the important thing really. Small steps.

I think it would still be a good idea to have a 'turn off all effects' button in the main kcm module. Even if all it did was just uncheck all the effects, but ideally it would grey out the effect list whilst turning everything off. As for a name, how about 'Special FX'?

As for the general Categories mentioned in my last post:

• Hardware (Configuration of hardware like Printers, Mouse, Touchpad, Sound, Energy Saving etc. only affecting the current user)
  
• Network (everything network related that can be configured differently for every user like Bluetooth, proxies, network management settings etc.)
  
• System (everything that affects more than one user like System time, software management, user management, System Security related stuff, ev. firewall settings affecting all users, but would better suit to network ...)
  
• Identity/Personal (personal settings and management of for e.g. user account, kwallet and instant messaging accounts)
  
• Appearance (Application appearance, Plasma etc.),
  
• Global User Settings (Shortcuts, Universial access, Nepomuk/Baloo search, File Associations, Notifications, Kwin window rules etc.))

Do you think it makes sense to distinguish between settings only affecting the current user and settings affecting more than one user?

System would be the only category that hosts modules making changes that affect more than one user, but options like "Share Printer" still stay in the user settings (under Hardware/Printer) as they do not directly "affect"/change something for other users, but allow them to use things one user has to share.
I am aware that Hardware Settings would therefore be personal Settings, that is the reason why I wrote "Identity/Personal ", as I think Identity Settings would describe the aim more precisely.
I am also aware that strictly speaking, instant messaging settings belongs to "networking" as well as "mail" would, but it is more related to your identity.


I think it makes sense, as it would be more clear to users, what affects only one user himself and what affects other users too.

I would also consider moving Settings of Plasmoids like the Connection Editor of Networkmanager to System Settings, as Users could search for it in System Settings and currently wont find it there. I think this fits pretty well with the definition of System Settings, a central place to configure things.

Would you agree? What do you dislike on my structure?

Hey ho,

i have some ideas for the basic structure of the System Settings and thanks to this group someone will look at them. Thanks for that.
I hope/think the idea is good for beginners and experts. Well the mockups are very simple so let your imagination flow a bit.



I think everyone agrees on 5-6 main categories. So this would be the first look. Nice big Icons not too fancy but not ugly too.



After choosing one Icons/category you get a list of the most used settings ( i would like a rollout effekt here). I think it makes sense to keep the first view simple for beginners and hide the "not so relevant" stuff. The whole categorie should be highlighted. Well, i hope not in the same colorcode i used but somehow



So now you clicked the black arrow i pointed out one picture bevor and got the "extra stuff". If i imagine myself using the kcontrol and always wanting some option thats in the hidden extra stuff i picture myself very frustrated. But wait till the end. This is still for newer Users. So i try to give a simple but expandable overview. By the way you can use this to hide expert options inside a subcategorie too. I think the mandrive-control does this.



So now we get to the experts part. If you click on "Settings" ( the button does not have to look or to be placed like that) you get all the options you need and want (well that i want ). You can say "hey kcontrol skip the first view and show me all categoies unrolled, with or without "extra stuff". And finally if you chose the option "edit" you can rearrange the entries of each category as you like. You get a visual feedback that shows you "editmode" is on. Now you are able to simply drag and drop every option from "extra stuff" to "normal stuff" and the other way around. That way you can create your own Kcontrol overview in an extremly easy way.
Of course it would be nice to have a dialoge at the first use of kcontrol which asks you how you would like it to look.
So this is my idea of an ideal kcontrol for an ideal world

I wanted to refer to some posts here too. But i dont have the time now and will do it later.

Sorry for being late .
This topic was discussed in relation to KTp some time ago in the review board, and since then I wanted to prepare a guideline. I would start writing with considerations about left list view (missing in desktop effects KCM) and right content, would add ideas on grouping (using tabs is a no-go when left hand navigation is done differently), and last but not least discuss which settings should go to a central control module at all.
I really appreciate your discussion on how modules should be sorted (I always search for the right item), but is not suitable for a guideline since it is a very specific decision. So splitting this thread makes sense to me.

I suspect that as long as each module can only exist in one field, there will be contention about which field some modules should belong to. This is because some modules will fit equally well for multiple fields, and people will disagree about which is a better fit, on a subjective/personal basis. And the real problem, underneath it all, is "what are the odds that specific setting $xyz will be in the first place I look for it?"

So I wonder if the ideal solution is "modules can belong to more than one field." Make it more like tags than an absolute hierarchy. This isn't really compatible with the way that the present version of Systems Settings displays the overview of all fields, but that's open for change anyways, given a good enough reason, right? It's no small thing to ponder a rethink of that interface, since it offers such a handy level of one-click access to modules, but I expect it would drive up the odds of find-on-first-try significantly.

I made some mockups a long time ago about adding a breadcrumb navigation menu to the system settings.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-48Vy ... ings-2.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Whoy ... ings-3.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Fsqw ... ings-4.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-JXBE ... ings-5.jpg

Which I did mainly because of how annoying it was when they took everything out of the "Change Desktop Settings" when you right click the panel. Why force me to go through the system settings to change the theme, or icons, or color scheme? So a breadcrumb menu would make it easier to jump around within the settings as well as tie the desktop settings and the system settings together. Also it wouldnt take up much space (It would essentially just replace the title for each module). The far right should include a search bar though, which I did not include. These are OLD mockups so keep that in mind, just an idea.


In regards to different group/category names (the current ones are ridiculously over complicated)

Personal
Appearance
Network
System
Hardware

would be my choice. I dont think you need global settings. Just stick time/locale under personal (its YOUR timezone isnt it?) so how is that not something personal? Also, I dont think making a separate category just in case there are more than one user is a good way to go. Just put stuff where it should go and let the admin/user change it per user or globally based on the kcm modules settings.