> The old GNOME2 HIG was mostly based upon quality work by the Sun Microsystems usability engineers. While it might not have been "exciting", it was mostly good stuff, and played an important role in GNOME2 becoming the refined, usable desktop environment that it was, including all its applications. I'm unconvinced that there were any "paradigms" that needed "breaking" here. All that happened was that GNOME got broken.
Can those ex-Sun usability engineers give their views so posters can hear them? What are those broken functionalities? Gnome Shell is designed to be minimal as possible so users can add extra functionality themselves similar to Mozilla Firefox as an example. While several posters wasted their time complaining how their holy functionalities are missing, other decided to work on extensions. I kept insisting on that point.
> No, you can't. Having a "broken by default" setup, which can be made "slightly more usable" by downloading untrusted code from a random website (rather than being an integrated part of your distribution) is just insane.
Hence the creation of extensions.gnome.org where quality of codes can be improved based on feedback unless Extensions from gnome.org based is random website by itself.
Having myself let regular users (who don't visit technical website and such) play with Gnome Shell running laptop, neither of them complaining about usability, majority of them already familiar with cellphone interface and few of them never touched a computer in their lifetime. Reading some posts, it appears the complains are from those who heavily optimized their desktop environments.