Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 20th Mar 2007 01:51 UTC
X11, Window Managers The Beryl project has won a lot of press time so far with its impressive tricks -- even more than its slower-evolving daddy, Compiz. There are several lose ends to Beryl's core engine and incompatibilities with existing applications or technologies. However, something that really put off a lot of people when they try Beryl is its dreadful settings manager.
Thread beginning with comment 222998
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not Convincing
by segedunum on Tue 20th Mar 2007 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Not Convincing"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

The instant apply feature is derived from macos. In-fact this behavior has been present in macos since before system 7

So that makes it right? I don't know where this bowing down before MacOS as the epitome of everything that is right comes from, but Gnome seems to have it in spades.

People are used to their computers asking them to confirm every little thing like MS does.

No. It's just I don't feel the need to remember everything that I've done and put it back to where it was. This is an utter disaster in anything approaching a moderately complex UI - and I mean moderate.

Why do you have to confirm if you want to change your backdrop? Just change it let me see what it looks like and if i don't like it I can change it back.

Because it allows me to try multiple things at once in a short space of time - and not affect my existing settings to the point where I need to remember every little thing I've done to get it back the way it was.

Its a better indicator of what your changes will look like than any preview pane will do.

No actually. It's just laziness.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Not Convincing
by Kitty on Wed 21st Mar 2007 13:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Not Convincing"
Kitty Member since:
2005-10-01

I can't understand your logic here.

No. It's just I don't feel the need to remember everything that I've done and put it back to where it was. This is an utter disaster in anything approaching a moderately complex UI - and I mean moderate.

1) With auto-apply you usually go back your latest change, not the accumulation of N, exactly because you don't prepare N changes and previw them, you test them directly one by one . But in case you keep wandering in the configuration space and end up too far from the starting point...
2) ...that's why e.g. the Gnome theme selector has a big "Revert" button that will revert back all of the auto-applied changes. Auto-apply is not the same as auto-save.

Agreed that auto-apply is not good for each and every use case, but previews are often not enough.
In particular desktop theme settings, the case you brought forth, are a good example of this.
Will your preview feature show you the appearance of _all_ widgets? Will the icon theme you chose look good for a list view of files at sizes down to 24x24, when your preview showed them all pretty on a fake desktop and with the much greater desktop-size set?
Most probably you will end up applying and testing directly with real windows, a file selector, your favourite applications etc, or if you don't you can save and later discover a detail that won't work... and _then_ you'll have to remember the combination of N changes anyway.

The main reason to avoid auto-apply in many cases is still that the apply operation might be slow or resource-intensive, and I bet that's why it was not used more in Windows in the past, and the whole confirm-fest was started. Nowadays let's not make the same mistakes if we can afford the better option.

No actually. It's just laziness.

Wow, I'm all convinced now. Please explain how a whole themed desktop with open windows and applications of your choice is not better than a standardized small preview pane. Unless you were just bashing any vaguely Gnome-related UI choice. But that would be beneath you, wouldnt it?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Not Convincing
by apoclypse on Wed 21st Mar 2007 15:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Not Convincing"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Its harder to implement instant apply as a desktop paradigm so I'm not sure what you mean by lazy. If you can't remember what wallpaper you were using especially with the simplicity of the wallpaper chooser that gnome uses, then I don't know what to tell you. Its no like the options in Gnome are so plentiful that changing options back is gonna be a trial. There aren't that many options to mess around with. Instant apply means that if you change an option it instantly applies so you know right away if it doesn't work for you. Its doesn't mean you change a whole bunch of options then you have to revert if you don't like it. If you changed your mouse pointer you'll know immediately of you don't like it, and can go back to the previous one you had. Its actually much easier than an apply function where every change you make doesn't get applied until you hit the button, meaning that if you change your backdrop, your screensaver, your font size, then hit apply you're in trouble cause then you are going to have to remember how everything was. And yes I think that Apple's did it right. People are so used to MS way that they don't ever want to see something better in front of there faces. Windows is a usability nightmare, it has always been. Marketshare is what makes people not care. Windows doesn't have the largest marketshare because people like it, though originally that might have been the case (with like windows 1.0), people use windows because they've been weened on windows since whenever they bought their pc. Bad design is bad bad design, and MS fear of losing legacy compatibility is what stifles their innovation. Win95 was NOT a well designed Gui, but it was cheaper than the alternative and Apple wasn't bringing anything to the plate at that time due to their superiority complex, not to mention that a year later you pretty much had no choice, Linux wasn't around to be any competition.

Reply Parent Score: 1