| |||||||||||||
Ubuntu and window controlsUbuntu and window controlsPosted Mar 25, 2010 12:01 UTC (Thu) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103)Parent article: Ubuntu and window controls
I guess the summary of it all is "bike shedding". The question though is who is building and who's shedding?
(Log in to post comments)
Ubuntu and window controls Posted Mar 25, 2010 12:19 UTC (Thu) by Frej (subscriber, #4165) [Link]
yeah everybody can argue because it's one of the simple changes, say unlike discussion the IO
scheduler. So it gets to bikeshedding. But really, the button placement is not worse or better it's just different.
But 'different' really means something for usability, because a lot of theory is argues that it's
The problem is changing another persons habits. Think about how hard it is for you to change
If you use a system often and the buttons are always the place, it's not going to be a problem.
Ubuntu and window controls Posted Mar 25, 2010 15:51 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] In terms of user experience things like I/O scheduler choices actually have much less of a impact then button placement.For the purposes of the desktop what happens with applications like Metacity, Desktop search, and that sort of stuff is much more important then anything going on in the LKML. GTK and themeing is of much higher level of importance then 90% of the changes that have happenned in the Linux kernel since 2.620 or so (minus the increase in driver/hardware support). The best positive impact the kernel and other low-level things can do is improve graphics support, get drivers out to users faster, and (most importantly) avoid breaking people's systems. If people are forced to care about low-level things like file systems on their Desktop all it largely means is that Linux has failed as a desktop OS kernel. Now in terms of workstation or server duties things get a lot simplier and a lot murkier for Linux since you tend to be dealing with higher technical requirements and more technical sorts of people... but largely if the user has to give a crap about low-level things it's still a bit of a failure unless there is a huge positive benefit to doing so. (fixing breakage is not a huge positive benefit.. it's something that should not happen in the first place ideally.) Of course that does not mean that it's worth getting upset and flaming people over it button placement. It still is rather petty to really get angry over. But it certainly, for most people's experiences using the OS, it's going to be much less 'bikeshedding' then, say, debating the merits of XFS vs Ext3. :)
|
|||||||||||||