Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Desktop Configurability: Is More Better?
KDE.News
reports on
an ongoing KDE design issue:
"One of the oft-recurring debates on KDE mailing lists is, how configurable should the KDE desktop be?
With recent indications that GNOME seems to be heading
in the "less is better" direction, independent KDE developer
Mosfet has written an editorial
urging why KDE should not follow suit."
(Log in to post comments)
Desktop Configurability: Is More Better? Posted Feb 27, 2003 18:01 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] I (irk) haven't time to go read the piece just now, but my instinct, based on 14 years or so doing this stuff is: leave the knobs in, select good defaults, and build good overlay/salvo interfaces for people who don't *want* to tweak every knob.-- j
Desktop Configurability: Is More Better? Posted Mar 3, 2003 13:42 UTC (Mon) by mwilck (guest, #1966) [Link] I full-heartedly agree with Mosfet on this one. The GNOME2 project's approach is arrogant and wrong. I peronally was driven away from GNOME by this attitude.KDE Guys, you may want to clean up or reorganize your control panel, but don't take the options away from us, and don't give in to the self-appointed GUI experts!
Desktop Configurability: Is More Better? Posted Mar 5, 2003 22:53 UTC (Wed) by komarek (guest, #7295) [Link] Your description of the GNOME2 approach as arrogant feels dead-on to me. The nonsense I've encountered in GNOME2 has made me reconsider alternatives. CDE and KDE formerly had too few config options, but I've seen evidence that KDE is changing. However, I'm most tempted to go back to fvwm2 and derivatives. All I really want from my window manager are virtual desktops, some sort of launch panel, and load monitors. It seems that the window manager is the area we're really talking about.-Paul Komarek
Desktop Configurability: Is More Better? Posted Mar 3, 2003 20:53 UTC (Mon) by tres (guest, #352) [Link] I think that the correct solution is a selection for the user level.1. Nebie/Novice/Beginner The naming of which doesn't really matter. For the beginner, everything that is not essential should be hidden. For the normal user it should be pretty much like it is. And for the advanced user it should have everything that can possibly be configured. This would include adding a comment at the end of the menus stating which files could be edited to adjust all of the options that can be set that never had a menu item created for them. My $0.02,
Desktop Configurability: Is More Better? Posted Mar 4, 2003 14:49 UTC (Tue) by niteeyes (guest, #6817) [Link] Options like that remind me of text GUI apps from the DOS days. Having grown up on Apples instead of PCs, I've always felt selections like that just didn't work. How does a user know what level they are? More importantly, which features dissapear and appear for which level?I think if you really want levels like that, users are better served with smaller applications and more of them, with ways to combine their functionality (the UNIX methodology). Users can tweak options on each small application if they need to, or just leave things alone. Better to have more control panels than property sheets, for example.
Desktop Configurability: Is More Better? Posted Mar 5, 2003 22:44 UTC (Wed) by komarek (guest, #7295) [Link] I think a different choice of level names would clear up your concerns. Although I'm being a bit silly with the names I suggest below, the idea is serious. I hate the stupid "Advanced" dialogs in Windows and, increasingly, in GNU/Linux apps.1) "A productive user accepts the default settings" -Paul Komarek
|
|
||||||||||||