OSNews

I dunno

it looks simplfied, but then does that also mean that a lot of functionality has gone ?

I use kde after switching from gnome.

gnome was too basic for me. I like checkboxes, radio buttons, menu items that I havent got a clue what they do....

a cut down kde might be what I am looking for..
I will give it a go

I wouldn't say that, having looked at the dialogs they still bear a striking resemblence to their regular KDE ones with few exceptions. They do appear simpler, some have had features taken out while others were broken up into several simpler dialogs, but by no means is that "taking ideas from Gnome".

Simplicity has existed long before Gnome, desktop environments besides Gnome have been going for simpler approaches longer than Gnome has. Frankly I'm sorry but I feel that your comment is astro-turfing. I feel that it is about as appropriate as going into a Windows thread and telling everyone there who likes windows that their OS was copied off Mac OS (everyone knows Xerox was making GUIs before Microsoft or Apple). I feel very much the same: that Gnome users take credit for KDE every time a dialog is made simpler. We all know that other desktop environments and operating systems have done this long before Gnome.

Looks like KDE trying to look like Gnome (and failing).

I still find it very much "KDEish" and almost as distracting.

I cannot really put my finger on it: KDE just looks bad to me (gnomer, if you had any doubt).

I don't know... maybe the same desktop with a less flashy and ugly theme could bear a different impression?
Could someone please make a screenshot of SimpleKDE with a clearlooks style theme and gPerfection or Tango icon theme?

I don't think the devil lies in the theme, but in the details.

Just an example: On screenshot5, there are only four checkboxes, but both a notebook _and_ a completely redundant frame around them. Add to this a row of buttons which are unevenly spaced (with the most important one being the smallest target) and it's no wonder the dialog doesn't appear particularly elegant. With better wording of the options, all the bevels could be removed. With instant apply, almost all the buttons could be removed. Compare and contrast:
http://static.flickr.com/44/107290151_36a45ea655_o.png

The other screenshots show more cases of unecessary frames and bevels, bad or technical wording and inconsistent (or nonexistant) paddings. Many of it seems to be caused by simply taking away options from KDE dialogs without actually redesigning the dialog.

It's those kind of details that make the difference between an attractive and an irritating interface to me. Much more than any kind of theme.

Yes, they have taken from GNOME that apparenly, simplicity is defined by the amount of features that your application doesn't have.
And SimpleKDE did a very bad job here too. For example, why would any newbie want to use the "New Tab" menu entry when browsing files? Exactly this is the most confusing thing about Konqueror, I think, namely that it doesn't really know the difference between viewing HTML pages and browsing directories.
For all the other things, it is just nonsense. Most users won't configure anything at all, even on Windows or OS X. Maybe they'll change the background picture, but that's about it for the more casual user.
So the only thing that is practical to do, is to clean up the default interface a bit.
For example, one could remove the pager, in the default configuration files. There really is no need to remove it entirely from the codebase!
And for the simplifications in Konqueror: I bet those are also possible with just removing some buttons from the default config and using Kiosk.

EDIT: From their FAQ: "But it seems like Appeal and SimpleKDE do not share the same vision. Appeal might be a focus on usability for KDE, but this does not mean improving usability and performance by dropping some features." Why on earth can your ultimate goal be to remove useful features from an application!?

Edited 2006-03-03 09:35