I'd say it's fine that way

Yeah when you put it that way it makes sense to have it on top to avoid it getting hidden by too many options.

Network manager doesn't really fit visually with the other applets. How about slim it down too?

When clicking an available wireless, should expand to display:
Security
Signal strength
Maybe MAC?

These get reused in plasma mobile too (as far as I know) so we have to be extra careful with changes like these, especially size and click/tap targets. Also don't know about hiding stuff behind another click w10-style.

The Networks Plasmoid in particular is not going to get used in Plasma Mobile, we have a different UI for that. You can put it on you home screen in theory, but that's a use case I won't loose sleep over

Click area is 32 pixel, double of the updated checkboxes (photo above, has the old ones), assuming that don't get overridden.

Only 2 options displayed now. IMO they add more to visual noise, than usability.

edit: update on feedback

In T10470#219124, @gvgeo wrote:

Network manager doesn't really fit visually with the other applets. How about slim it down too?

I would definitely miss the "active connections" and "available connections" headers as they structured it very clearly at the first glance.

Details	Current	Proposed
Last used		Remove	"Never Used" is shown for most connections
SSID	Hidden	Remove	Network Name is from SSID

That's true on discovery, but afterwards you can change the connection's name (not SSID) in the connection's setting's dialog and thus they can differ.

About the "last used": It kind of makes sense to display it as you have two orderings here:

1. known connections
2. connection strengths

If you drop the "last used" entirely, it may look like the ordering were wrong. Possibly, instead of "last used", other sections seperators could be introduced:
"Active connections", "Known connections" and "Further connections".

Something like this?
Easy to differentiate connected vs available(with a bit more space around the line) , and communicates sort order.

SSID needs to stay with the current system.
But can show 'Last used' only when need.

How about a subtle background behind the active connection to make it even more visible?

In T10470#219347, @gvgeo wrote:

Something like this?

Maybe we should also please @jgrulich to give his opinion about it as it seems Jan did the previous designs (Jan's youtube video list).
The link also leads you a little bit to the history of the applet's design. :)

Based on the mock-ups, the plasmoid + panel color should switch from the grayish window-background to the whiteish view-background. Is this correct?
Opaque:

(a bit of transparency:)

Here's a basic top area:

In T10470#219347, @gvgeo wrote:

Something like this?
Easy to differentiate connected vs available(with a bit more space around the line) , and communicates sort order.

SSID needs to stay with the current system.
But can show 'Last used' only when need.

I like it. I would add "Last used xxx ..." for all known connections to distinguish between available access points and configured connections. Regarding SSID, it will be used for access point which have never been used before, otherwise connection name is used, which in most cases follows the SSID, unless user changes it. I would't personally change or trim down information shown when you expand a connection. Many users are using these to get some defails (like IP address, MAC address, signal strength and also many people use the graph with download and upload. This information is hidden so it won't bother others who don't need them and those who want them, can get them quite easily.

In T10470#219676, @niccolove wrote:

Here's a basic top area:

Not sure about that giant pin, but that looks nice. I 'd say better, flip down and the rest of applets headers, before applying this patch (or together).
May want to keep an eye on the other system tray's patches https://phabricator.kde.org/source/plasma-workspace/browse/master/applets/systemtray/package/contents/ui/ .

Thinking about it now, what's the reason to put the checkboxes in the plasma-nm applet at the bottom? In this case they overrule what it's visible below, e.g. you turn off WiFi and all wireless networks will disappear. Similar situation is with the notification applet, where the "Do not disturb" checkbox is at the top, because it overrules what's below. It makes more sense when this is placed at the top as it has bigger effect.

In T10470#219894, @jgrulich wrote:

Thinking about it now, what's the reason to put the checkboxes in the plasma-nm applet at the bottom? In this case they overrule what it's visible below, e.g. you turn off WiFi and all wireless networks will disappear. Similar situation is with the notification applet, where the "Do not disturb" checkbox is at the top, because it overrules what's below. It makes more sense when this is placed at the top as it has bigger effect.

I agree, I'm not sure it makes sense to put everything at the bottom. I think this was triggered by the idea to put some controls in the audio widget at the bottom, but that's because the top was occupied by a tab bar.

On the other hand, it's worth considering that controls we want to access quickly might be worth placing on the bottom . It's a little different for panel widgets than it is for applications because panel widgets are (by default) accessed by clicking on an icon below and aren't typically used very long. I don't really have strong opinions on this matter.

I believe @ahiemstra mentioned something about adding a way to put some kinds of actions in the widget header. It might be worth considering when that would be more desirable than putting all buttons at the bottom.

My opinion on the toolbar placement:
Based on the way we naturally look content, from the top to bottom, display most used content first. The notification message, controls for volume, brightness etc.
Placing at the bottom, also splits visually the content from the controls, making it less noisy thus easier to recognize and read.
I don't see the warning messages as a problem. Keep at the top, like in D26806, otherwise won't be noticed. The only thing I would change is, the background color to match the title (background margins of the system tray, need to be removed).

Notification button, can also change it's label to "Do not disturb, until XX:XX" (btw please drop the seconds from the message).
For wifi I can add a message, "Wireless is disabled" and "Airplane mode is enabled" messages. (Almost there, still working on that, it proved to be harder than I thought. Photos were fakes)

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, so I'll just accept what you think is better - let's remember consistency, just that.

In T10470#219979, @ndavis wrote:

I believe @ahiemstra mentioned something about adding a way to put some kinds of actions in the widget header. It might be worth considering when that would be more desirable than putting all buttons at the bottom.

Yeah, it was in response to a mockup from aditosan. I have the proof of concept code, if people want I can turn it into a proper patch.

Reply from the VDG group about why it's changed to a footer:

<noahdvs> I noticed a lot of patches for putting controls on the bottom going up. Are we sure this is really the right thing to do?
<manueljlin> The main reason is that the mockups have to be consistent with each other, and since the calendar and notifications popup use a footer I also had to put footers on audio volume (which solved the raise audio volume issue), battery and brightness, networks and the rest of the popups. Also, UI wise it's not too different to notifications from Android or a normal bottom navbar, plus it has more reachability for plasma mobile users and also requires less mouse travel on the desktop.

I have something to admit: I'm starting to wonder if it's wise to move the toolbars into footers.

The more I see it implemented, the less I feel that it's a big improvement. I'm not formally against it at this point, but let me state my concerns:

• Feels like "change for the sake of change"
• Since we have plans to make the top of the pop-up into a Plasma-style Tools Area, it feels most natural to keep what is essentially a toolbar there rather than making it a footer
• Nothing else has the primary tools in a footer

I can understand that putting the tools in the footer theoretically balances the visual weighting by having a header and a footer rather than a very thick header and no footer. This is especially true of the Audio applet, which has a very thick header with the titlebar, toolbar, and tab bar. But for other applets, I dunno. It just doesn't really feel necessary at all to me, and the more I look at it, the less I feel that it really works.

Does anyone else share these concerns?

I have no problem changing the footers back to headers, if you want I can make another version with these and go with them instead

Thanks for your flexibility. :)

Okay, I'm almost done with the mockups. Currently, it looks like this:

However, I have a couple of issues:

• The brand new hotspot button does not fit if the text label "Enable wireless networks" is added. If it isn't a problem, I can revert it to icons.
• Placement of the raise maximum volume option when there are tabs in the popup.

The network applet can also have "Enable mobile network" (icon network-mobile-on/off). All these 3 buttons are only visible when an applicable device exist.

And as long you update the mockups, the kde-connect can have many devices, and there are up to 4 buttons.

Also worth mentioning this patch.
https://invent.kde.org/kde/kdeconnect-kde/commit/36bcade705dab8922a9cd106ede15c16f27b8176

plasmoid: move plasmoid buttons into a menu 

This way we get to see what they do together with the icon.
Removes some visual clutter as well.

can we have a follow up task regarding list hover style? (and hover in general)

https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/plasma-framework/-/merge_requests/163