The GNOME project at 15 [LWN.net]

The GNOME project at 15

Posted Aug 16, 2012 7:37 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950)
In reply to: The GNOME project at 15 by bojan
Parent article: The GNOME project at 15

I have to disagree in the case of Gnome usability experts. Strongly. Based on the above objective complaints.

You're not presenting facts, just your opinion. I really like and appreciate how you write in detail why it doesn't work for you. But being objective on your opinion still makes it an opinion.

e.g. I the workspaces work perfectly fine for me. I don't see the relation to maximization. I can move applications between workspaces (e.g. like tabs in browser windows).

Gnome 3 does away with this, but it leaves user an option to still minimise windows (in a surprising about face when compared to the rest of the system, through a configurable option).

Loads of things are configurable. This one was configurable in via gconf-editor since early 2.x days. The default changed and this button option was still available to be changed in gconf-editor (now lately in dconf-editor). Additionally, it is now also shown in gnome-tweak-tool.

That there are loads of options you can change in GNOME is not surprising at all. The complaint is usually about things appearing in System Settings or not.

The option you're talking about is only available in gnome-tweak-tool or {d,c}conf-editor. I fail to see why it is surprising that you do notice that option, while ignoring the hundreds of other options.

And nobody seems to be listening.

I've responded to you many many times.

to post comments

The GNOME project at 15

Posted Aug 16, 2012 21:21 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

Yeah, bojan's told you his opinion, over and over again. And you've responded with contempt and claims that he is wrong, even though opinions of the form 'X does not work for me, here is why' surely *cannot* be 'wrong'.

IMNSHO you are one of the largest negatives GNOME 3 has in the marketing arena, and if you actually wanted to be good for the project you'd think harder before you typed.

The GNOME project at 15

Posted Aug 18, 2012 11:19 UTC (Sat) by Jandar (subscriber, #85683) [Link] (1 responses)

> opinions of the form 'X does not work for me, here is why'

You are sucked into the rhetoric of bkor. 'X does not work for me' isn't an opinion, it is a fact.

The GNOME project at 15

Posted Aug 23, 2012 11:43 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]

That is not what I meant.

I mean that you cannot take your personal opinions and preferences to mean anything for the general case.

In any case, usually people don't refer to their opinions as facts, do I don't get why you're having difficulties to follow what I mean.

The GNOME project at 15

Posted Aug 19, 2012 0:31 UTC (Sun) by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628) [Link]

I see nothing wrong with what he said. His opinion was in fact subjective.

The GNOME project at 15

Posted Aug 16, 2012 23:45 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (1 responses)

I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. If you reread my post, you will see that I'm trying to show a pattern of Gnome 3, where developers have either:

- broken long standing UI concepts
- applied wrong UI concepts to essentially a desktop OS

When I say "nobody is listening", I mean, nobody that is part of Gnome development group is providing a way out of these errors.

So, when you say in your reply that many things are configurable in relation to windows minimisation (and other things) - that is completely beside the point. There, I was really just pointing out, as a sidenote, that on a system where trivial customisations like rearranging of icons in impossible, somebody found it necessary to provide an option for a concept that has been all but butchered. The irony.

Window minimisation was a long standing concept, familiar to practically all desktop users. Gnome 3 introduced a soup of some of that stuff, but none of it is consistent or makes sense (as a metaphor of what is supposed to be happening when windows are minimised). Same with workspaces - from a clear concept, Gnome 3 went to ad-hoc visual hacks. Same with basic customisation. From clear and understandable drag-and-drop, Gnome 3 went to writing Javascript. And so on and so forth.

You may say that these things are my opinion. Maybe you see them that way. But it is a fact that many other desktop OSes (including previous versions of Gnome) use these concepts. And for a reason - users have been familiar with them for years and they work. Gnome 3 decided to break them, for reasons best described a "philosophical".

The GNOME project at 15

Posted Aug 17, 2012 1:02 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> Gnome 3 decided to break them, for reasons best described a "philosophical".

And what I am also implying here is that not only were the existing concepts broken, but they were not replaced by anything that serves the same purpose better (and contrary to what you say, these things can actually be measured, as I explained many times before). The best Gnome developers can offer is occasional suggestions that are completely orthogonal to the problem - which is to use a different input device (keyboard).

PS. Sure, some folks have tried to minimise the carnage by providing extensions that bring back various things that were broken. However, extension are no more part of official Gnome than Firefox addons are part of official Firefox. They are certainly not part of the "official way" of doing things.

The GNOME project at 15

Posted Aug 17, 2012 1:34 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (1 responses)

> You're not presenting facts, just your opinion.

I know I wrote on this before, but just so that we are clear:

- fact: it takes significantly more mouse/GUI actions to change a workspace in Gnome 3

- fact: it is impossible to see on which workspace you are in Gnome 3, without many mouse/GUI actions (amazingly, even with extensions)

- fact: there is enough screen pixels to overlay applications menu on a desktop screen (search included)

- fact: Gnome 2 panel had autohide feature

- fact: when minimised, windows in Gnome 3 go into oblivion

- fact: in overview, minimised windows in Gnome 3 appear as normal windows

- fact: Gnome 3 window manager arbitrarily maximises windows

- fact: it is impossible to remove/move an icon in Gnome 3 panel without writing code

- fact: every time one wants to start an app, almost every single pixel on the screen is changed in Gnome 3; this is terrible for performance when working remotely

Etc, etc.

The GNOME project at 15

Posted Aug 23, 2012 11:32 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]

If you look at what you state, it seems for instance that you like to minimize windows. You can only do that in a inperfect way and by default that is hidden.

Your personally like to hide windows. But then your personal ideas don't make things a fact.

Or otherwise stated:
A -> B -> C

A: You like minimizing windows
B: GNOME 3 doesn't really do that
C: GNOME 3 is no good (for you)

But you cannot state in general that GNOME 3 is no good based on this. I'm not arguing that minimizing windows can or cannot be done. Just that you lack a 'fact' to show that something like that is needed (in general). That bit is personal. This is what I meant before with not presenting facts.