| |||||||||||||
Day: GNOME OSDay: GNOME OSPosted Aug 9, 2012 21:35 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: Day: GNOME OS by thebluesgnr Parent article: Day: GNOME OS
Think about it - even moving an icon requires someone to write code. Ridiculous. No other UI has that kind of limitation.
(Log in to post comments)
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 9, 2012 21:58 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
One more detail. At the bottom of this page http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html, you will find a piece of text that is rather instructive when it comes to extensions:
> During development and testing I have only the Frippery extensions installed. There will be conflicts between extensions and it's impossible to test all combinations. I do try to resolve conflicts that are brought to my attention but all I can guarantee is that the Frippery extensions are compatible with one another.
Extensions are an afterthought, created because people could not do with Gnome 3 what they expected from it (and now extension developers are paying the price). The basic ability to customise should have been part of the system from day one. In fact, if Gnome 3 is an upgrade from Gnome 2, then lack of being able to customise is a regression.
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 10, 2012 0:50 UTC (Fri) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link]
Ah, I see; they purposefully create a new piece of technology from scratch in Javascript due to its extensibility; they make extensions work day 1; they invest a significant amount of time on the web infrastructure required to make extensions.gnome.org work; they review hundreds of extensions posted by users in their free time. And instead of getting thanks, they get accused of doing all that work just so they can pry and torture their poor users from the beloved taskbar and windows 95-like application menu. I mean, imagine if two extensions conflict with each other! The horror!
They're some devious creatures indeed, I'm not buying software from them anymore.
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 10, 2012 3:10 UTC (Fri) by slashdot (guest, #22014) [Link]
Well, extensions are good.
But obviously, having extensions doesn't excuse you from providing a configurable UI (esp. since all serious applications have supported toolbar customization since around 15 years ago at least).
Not only writing code is much more time consuming than configuring, but options never conflict, while there is no way to make arbitrary extensions not conflict.
For example, if you look at Firefox, you can:
This is what any serious software must provide, and that's obvious even to a beginning user.
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 12, 2012 13:57 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Not only writing code is much more time consuming than configuring, but options never conflict, while there is no way to make arbitrary extensions not conflict. Sorry, but this post contains so much nonsense I don't even know where to start. Probably from the beginning.
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 14, 2012 6:08 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> Can you point me to step-by-step instruction which explains how to move icons in one of three products:
> iOS home screen
I do not use Office 2010, so I cannot tell you that (but Google points to many answers - do yourself a favour - use it).
I can tell you about iOS home screen. You hold one of the icons until they all start shaking. Then you rearrange them using your finger, by dragging and dropping.
I can also tell you about Android (well Galaxy S2 anyway). You tap options, then edit. Then you just drag and drop with you finger.
I have no idea what the point of your question was.
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 14, 2012 6:13 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> You can only configure something if someone else coded that something first and provided options to configure it, too!
Which is the point of our complaint. Gnome 3 developers did not code a generic way to do the most trivial of things for a GUI - rearrange elements on the screen. Duh!
Instead, for someone to move an icon by one position on the grid, you have to create or download code. But, if you want to move it by two, you may be out of luck. Totally and utterly ridiculous, of course.
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 14, 2012 10:28 UTC (Tue) by slashdot (guest, #22014) [Link]
> You can only configure something if someone else coded that something first and provided options to configure it, too!
Yeah, except that's done once rather than every time a user needs to do something slightly different.
> Options conflict all the time — and these conflicts must be resolved by program developers,
Of course.
That's the whole fucking job of the program developers, making sure their software works, in all configurations!
Again, it's DONE ONCE and TESTED.
> And their number is limited. That's why software evolves from the options to extensions.
For things that do not conflict with other functionality.
> Can you point me to step-by-step instruction which explains how to move icons in one of three products
Microsoft Office 2010 ribbon toolbar:
As you can see, real applications with actual market share are not toys and can be configured.
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 10, 2012 6:38 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> Ah, I see; they purposefully create a new piece of technology from scratch in Javascript due to its extensibility; they make extensions work day 1; they invest a significant amount of time on the web infrastructure required to make extensions.gnome.org work; they review hundreds of extensions posted by users in their free time.
And all to remove accessibility icon, for instance. Or to not have to press Alt to shut the system down. Ridiculous. Objectively, forcing someone to write Javascript to move/remove an icon or set basic options is a regression when compared to Gnome 2. Maybe even Windows 3.1?
> And instead of getting thanks, they get accused of doing all that work just so they can pry and torture their poor users from the beloved taskbar and windows 95-like application menu.
Only because the newfangled "overview" requires significantly more GUI/mouse actions to do things, provides no visibility of the desktop or minimised/obscured windows and attacks users with visual elements that they never wanted to use. These are objective, measurable regressions.
> I mean, imagine if two extensions conflict with each other! The horror!
Yeah, the horror indeed. The combinatorial explosion of possible conflicts is mind boggling. And all to do what? Something that all other desktops can do already, without writing any code?
Look, I understand why the home screen is removed from view when I start an app on my Galaxy S2. There isn't enough space to have the home screen and the app on that device's screen at the same time. But to remove my windows from view for me to start an app on my 1600 x 900 laptop screen? Or someone's 27" 2560 x 1400 screen? What's that about?
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 10, 2012 11:22 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
All that extensibility work is great for someone, I'm sure. But I just wanted to be able to drag menu entries onto my task-bar, like I used to be able to.
|
|||||||||||||