"The purpose of this article is not to emphasize the strengths and merits of Ubuntu user experience, but instead to shed a brighter light on areas that have been neglected due to shortage of time and resources, usability testing, and various software and artwork defects. I hope those who are sometimes overprotective of open-source software will take my recommendations with a pinch of salt and see this article for what it really tries to be: a vocal user experience report and constructive criticism."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-31
I think the two panel approach is just for what you mentioned, a wealth of permanent icons and static items (the top panel for menus, clock, favourite apps, weather) and the more dynamic changing and resizing items (task panel, notification area).
It should also be noted that the placement of the show desktop and trash use very user friendly concept of hotspot corners. Without having an intemate knowledge of the key commands in on the desktop one can quickly and subsequently more easily achieve these very common tasks.
Member since:2006-01-06
Note that a significant amount of Gnome users use and prefer "standard" aspect screens*.
In this case, trying to squeeze the Gnome menus, shortcut icons, desktop pager, clock, notification icons and controls onto one panel would leave little room for the window list (the most important part) on all but the highest resolutions.
Plus, remember than almost all Linux users are at least "power users" and are likely to want to add applets to their panels. With a single-panel layout (as used in earlier versions of Gnome) there is simply no available space for this.
Better to have too much available space than not enough.
*IMHO "widescreen" is a con by screen manufacturers to exploit the fact that screen sizes are measured diagonally - so they can make 21" "widescreen" monitors with barely as many pixels as 15" "standard" aspect monitors.
Member since:2006-06-27
1024*768 = 786432 pixels
1680*1050 = 1764000 pixels
I don't see how that's a 'con by screen manufacturers.'
I prefer the widescreen (even with two panels) because I find the work flows better when windows are next to each other. The windows don't get hidden nearly as much.
IMHO, I think your humble opinion might be wrong, or at least a little misguided.
I guess that it's also possible that I missed some oozing sarcasm in your post.
Member since:2006-02-05
16:10 ratio makes way more sense for monitors in virtually every application other then document processing. Not only do you have more space on the taskbar, but you can have more tool pallets up without sacrificing document space.
I thought it was rather gimmicky too, until I got my widescreen laptop. Now, I would never by a "standard" ratio monitor again.
Member since:2005-08-07
Heh! Oh widescreens are scams alright, but just not the way you're thinking of. Look at the biggest feature from Vista-- the sidebar. Now try to remember back when IE4.0 first came out, and Microsoft contracted with Disney and all sorts of other advertisers to sell our desktops as their own personal billboards...
Yup! IMHO the main reason for the decision to go 'widescreen' was so the media companies can exploit the fact we're used to standard displays to place advertising and other types of crap on the sides of the screen, while still giving us the "standard" display we're used to. You already see it happening with the little mini-ads the TV networks run over the top of their TV shows....
--bornagainpenguin
Member since:2006-08-29
Member since:
2005-11-03
I am a gnome user. But I just wonder when will Gnome ever work on making the menu easier to configure? Alacarte is buggy. We need transparency too.
And yes, the two panels are unnecessary unless you like to fill one with lots of icons (which you can access using the menu too).