Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Nov 2007 15:46 UTC
Permalink for comment 285048
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
Well, my comment about MS Clippy help app may not have been a very good one anyway, as it is not so much related to the subject here. My point in mentioning it was only to give some kind of an example about looks vs. real usability. So putting emphasis on aesthetics does not always improve usability.
"4x4 icons may be really pro, but it is exponentially easier to hit 16x16."
Of course you're right about that. And there's absolutely nothing pro about too tiny 4x4 icons IMHO... ;-) Anyway, in Gnome I make my top and bottom panels 21 pixels high (possible with certain fonts like Free Sans) which is plenty enough in order for them to remain both clear to see, easy to use, and narrow enough so that they take minimum amount of space and can contain maximum amount of shortcuts or applets if I prefer to have them there.
"I am a big fan of the quicklaunch in windows (I hate, hate, hate the start menu, and always have)"
But start menus are - for a very good reason - found in almost all desktop environments. You tell that you hate them but fail to explain why? Care to elaborate?
I still wait to see a better way than a handy start menu to show, browse and get access to all the available applications? A start menu - of some sorts - seems like a necessity as far as I can tell. Running commands would be another way to browse, find and open apps - but not very newbie-friendly. The place where the start menu is located or can be opened is not essential. Some window managers have a "start menu" that can be opened by right-clicking the desktop background, but that is still the same start menu, and is also more difficult to reach if the desktop background is hidden under open windows.
Still about docks in general:
Mac OS X dock (and maybe many of its "copies" too) looks really nice. In aesthetics Mac OS X may be a clear winner. But what comes to functionality I prefer the old though maybe a bit dull looking taskbar. Not only does taskbar take much less desktop space but textual shortcuts of the taskbar show much more clearly than mere graphical icons what each shortcut represents. If you have, say, 10 open folders, and you can see only 10 similar looking folder icons side by side on the dock, which is which?
Mac OS X dock has some really nice features, though, like docklings and the availability of extended menus that control applications without making them visible on screen - but that could be implemented with a taskbars too.
Edited 2007-11-18 23:50 UTC