Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
Posted Jan 27, 2007 0:14 UTC (Sat) by TRauMa (guest, #16483)In reply to: Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was... by Tara_Li
Parent article: Metisse: you thought you knew what 3D was...
Good for you. But most people don't use Enlightenment or FVWM or whatnot - because those WMs and DEs aren't exactly easy to grok and friendly to users, they do things different in non-obvious ways. 3D now has the possibility to show people _what_ is going on, _why_ windows are moved somewhere else, they use far richer visual cues. If you always know what window is on which desktop, fine, if you think it's not too hard too set your WM up to do roll up/down automatically, more power to you, but most users don't pray to their desktop and invest hours in configuring and tweaking, they use it like might an elevator.
Now you can see through windows, see what's going on behind your terminal and still be able to read the text (cause the actual text is opaque). When you change desktops while doing a demo people watching you actually grok what's going on. You don't have to _explain_ to computer newbies where their windows went, they instantly realize. Windows that don't respond go greyscale so the user _knows_ they're frozen and somethings wrong, they don't click ten times into a dead window, with altered levels of frustration because they get absolutely no feedback. It's so many details and niceties, and in ten years people will smirk when they see todays desktop and the obvious usability issues they have (want to read a 90 degree turned scan on your monitor? Better turn your head, because your WM wont turn the window).
It's so expected that the "old schoolers" and "wm wizards" dismiss this whole thing with some handwaving and theories about how they _could_ set up their desktop to do the same. It's really like when GUIs came up and many many people always claimed that they can do anything on console just as fine, thank you, no biggie, what's all the fuss about. You focus on the current manifestations and some short videos and really believe they give you a feeling for what it's like to use them?
Sorry for the rant, but this irks me for some time now ;-). And, among us, it's not "just eye candy". There never is "just eye candy". It really helps to look good.
Posted Jan 27, 2007 10:12 UTC (Sat)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (5 responses)
Why wouldn't I know? I mean I use the computer, not just play around the with windows. Nearly everyone I see using virtual desktops creates a system: the mailer is on desktop 1, the browser is on desktop 2, the editor is on desktop 3, etc. Most of my collagues use CDE on Solaris, they even name their desktops about these tasks so even if they'd forget, they just look at the panel and know which window is where.
if you think it's not too hard too set your WM up to do roll up/down automatically, more power to you, but most users don't pray to their desktop and invest hours in configuring and tweaking, they use it like might an elevator.
I strongly disagree with you. A window manager is a tool like any other - if someone wants to use it, she has to learn how to use it. That one time investment of hours of configuring and tweaking really pays back through the years of usage. And if you say that the only difference between Metisse and a 2D window manager is that the former has default settings that better suit your needs, then we are definitely not talking about revolutionary changes.
When you change desktops while doing a demo people watching you actually grok what's going on.
But then are you using your window manager to work with it daily, or to demo things to people who haven't seen a window manager yet?
You don't have to _explain_ to computer newbies where their windows went, they instantly realize.
But the same newbie will be really bothered with the eye candy after 20 minutes, because it's just slow.
want to read a 90 degree turned scan on your monitor? Better turn your head, because your WM wont turn the window
Why the heck would I want my window manager to do such things? It's the job of the scanner software or the image displayer, it has nothing to do with the window manager.
It's really like when GUIs came up and many many people always claimed that they can do anything on console just as fine, thank you, no biggie, what's all the fuss about.
Well, actually, what's the fuss about it. At my office desktop I have about 15 xterms on my desktop, 4 browser windows, an acroread, an openoffice and a couple of gvim windows. If I got the documentation in plain text instead of .doc or .pdf, and the web tools didn't need JavaScript, I wouldn't really need X.
Posted Jan 27, 2007 11:08 UTC (Sat)
by oak (guest, #2786)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 27, 2007 15:48 UTC (Sat)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link]
Posted Feb 1, 2007 11:28 UTC (Thu)
by rossburton (subscriber, #7254)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you compare your window manager to, say, a car, you are a mechanic or possibly a racing driver. They know in intimate detail how their car works, and best to use it to get the best performance from it.
Now think about the millions of people who just use a car to drive to work and back. They don't want a sportcar that takes a hours to get used to, they want something they can get into and start using.
Posted Feb 1, 2007 15:18 UTC (Thu)
by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link]
In most, if not all, countries where cars have become commonplace items, before they ever "get into" their cars "and start using" them, there's the little matter* of passing a test. Even legs, the most natural and intuitive mode of transport around, come with a learning curve.
There's no such thing as "instant usability" - it's principally a combination of familiarity and predictability - and in time, customisability, so that you can bridge the gap between how it does work and how your mind persists in believing it should.
_____
Posted Feb 6, 2007 5:22 UTC (Tue)
by TRauMa (guest, #16483)
[Link]
Nearly everyone I see using virtual desktops creates a system: the mailer is on desktop 1, the browser is on desktop 2, the editor is on desktop 3, etc. Most of my collagues use CDE on Solaris, they even name their desktops about these tasks so even if they'd forget, they just look at the panel and know which window is where.
Been there, done that (icewm). And then you open xmms, quick, where do you put it? Eclipse? Any app that doesnt fit your scheme? Apps with more than one window? (Rumors have it they exist).
I strongly disagree with you. A window manager is a tool like any other - if someone wants to use it, she has to learn how to use it.
Like an elevator. I see. Well, I never read about the futurama suicide cabine before I saw it on TV, but I instantly knew how to use it.
people who haven't seen a window manager yet?
Uhm, honestly having trouble envisioning that.
But the same newbie will be really bothered with the eye candy after 20 minutes, because it's just slow.
Presumption. That was my concern, too, but I tried it and some things even run faster (everythings double buffered).
Why the heck would I want my window manager to do such things? It's the job of the scanner software or the image displayer, it has nothing to do with the window manager.
Yes. Duplicate functionality everywhere. OpenOffice, Mozilla, heck, everything that displays something, they all need their own smooth zoom.
Well, actually, what's the fuss about it. At my office desktop I have about 15 xterms on my desktop, 4 browser windows, an acroread, an openoffice and a couple of gvim windows. If I got the documentation in plain text instead of .doc or .pdf, and the web tools didn't need JavaScript, I wouldn't really need X.
Bah, you're just making excuses, a real power user would hex edit a live assembly kernel to display this page. :-) Documentation, you say? Of simple things, that never can use an image or two, for explanation? ;-)
Posted Jan 27, 2007 16:28 UTC (Sat)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 6, 2007 4:58 UTC (Tue)
by TRauMa (guest, #16483)
[Link]
Posted Jan 30, 2007 8:29 UTC (Tue)
by tyhik (guest, #14747)
[Link] (3 responses)
Newbies will probably always love eyecandy. It'd be interesting to hear what todays newbies think when they turn old-schoolers in 10 years.
Posted Feb 1, 2007 12:21 UTC (Thu)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 9, 2007 16:11 UTC (Fri)
by alext (guest, #7589)
[Link]
My useful vision. All applications are on the surface of a great (effectively infinite sphere so at close quarters there is no bending horizon effect). I then just say "focus window one" or "focus web browser" enabling me to work without taking my hands form the keyboard as much. Where "window one" is a defined view into which you pack multiple apps that you use together.
Pushing you mouse to a corner or edge and saying "scroll" zooms you out and rotates your sphere that way. But there is no point or need for this.
I suppose picture in a picture might be useful so I can look at a PIP half size version of another desktop?
Posted Feb 6, 2007 5:22 UTC (Tue)
by TRauMa (guest, #16483)
[Link]
You know, the thing with these "old schoolers" and "wm wizards" is that they have tried all this (ok, with less eyecandy)
Args, that killed me. There never was something like that back in the 80s. I have it on authority ;-).
Any half-transparent window is less easy to read than a non-transparent one, at least after a few hours of coding.
Why use X at all, if you only use one window? And who said things have to move if you dont want them to? Did you ever try something like Beryl? No! How do I know? What you say just is not true. Fake transparency makes text harder to read, bad animations (try beryls defaults) distract. Some of this stuff is usefull.
And what gives you the impression I'm a newbie? I started with Linux 2.0, icewm was my eye candy. And I'm glad we (that's the 99% I'm talking about) moved away from text file configured application menus. And the switch wasn't easy, I missed some things, others were there but different, and I had to set up some sortcuts. But I could do it without reading a man page.
You, too, could try something new, once in a while. It wouldn't kill you, I promise. :-D
If you always know what window is on which desktop, fine,
Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
That works fine when you have only a few windows or virtual desktops, Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
but when you need to have dozen(s) of them open (with each Browser window
of course having at least half a dozen tabs open in them), you will start
to getting lost and them this visual stuff starts helping.
I thought the reason why virtual desktops exists is to not have more than 10 windows on the same desktop. Most of my desktops have less than 5 windows, the toolbar gets cluttered with anything more. With 6 virtual desktop it's still 30 windows which is usually enough for me. What use case needs dozens of open windows on the same desktop or a dozen virtual desktop?
Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
> I strongly disagree with you. A window manager is a tool like any otherMetisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
> - if someone wants to use it, she has to learn how to use it. That one
> time investment of hours of configuring and tweaking really pays back
> through the years of usage. And if you say that the only difference between
> Metisse and a 2D window manager is that the former has default settings
> that better suit your needs, then we are definitely not talking about
> revolutionary changes.
"they want something they can get into and start using"Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
* I say "little" - I'm confident that I don't stand a chance of passing the damn thing.
Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
Sorry for the rant, but this irks me for some time now ;-). And, among us, it's not "just eye candy". There never is "just eye candy".
I think you're fooling yourself here. You've got something that interests you, which is fine, but now you're trying to pretend that it's useful, and it's not clear that it is. I'd have to use it for a while to be sure, but based on the demos I suspect that I would quickly find it more annoying that useful.
But it is! You didn't try it! :-) The Demos didn't excite me, too.Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
You know, the thing with these "old schoolers" and "wm wizards" is that they have tried all this (ok, with less eyecandy) earlier and reverted back to the minimal set of features that indeed matter. All these half-transparent/rolling-unrolling/jumping/dancing windows are cool at first glance but suck when you work. Every unnecessarily moving object on screen distracts. Any half-transparent window is less easy to read than a non-transparent one, at least after a few hours of coding. You know, it is not some weird stance of old schoolers being disgusted at eye candy. It is just that those guys have had much more time to develop their best practices.Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
They'll be sneering at full-immersion holographic window managers ;)Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
You are in the right direction. It makes me wonder if the right thing is to step in another dimension (sense!) of sound. Not practical for a busy shared office perhaps but I'm reminded of the recent IBM Developer works thing on speaking commands to your PC.Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...
Metisse: you though you knew what 3D was...