Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Feb 2009 14:07 UTC
Editorial Late last week we ran a story on how the Google Chrome team had decided to use Gtk+ as the graphical toolkit for the Linux version of the Chrome web browser. It was a story that caused some serious debate on a variety of aspects, but in this short editorial, I want to focus on one aspect that came forward: the longing for consistency. Several people in the thread stated they were happy with Google's choice for purely selfish reasons: they use only Gtk+ applications on their GNOME desktops. Several people chimed in to say that Qt integrates nicely in a Gtk+ environment. While that may be true from a graphical point of view, that really isn't my problem with mixing toolkits. The issue goes a lot deeper than that.
Thread beginning with comment 349457
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The problem with the Gnome and it's HIG is this:

If you can't wrap your brain around the interface, you are not going to use it, because you cannot configure it to behave as you like it.

The Gnome HIG is not written for my brain, so I find it clumsy, unintuitive and uninformative.

People who think like the HIG - guys will of course have the opinion, that there is no better desktop than Gnome, because everything just fits for them.

An example:
Take the "File > save as" dialog. In KDE you get a tree view when you open the dialog, in Gnome, the only way to find out where the file will be saved, is to read the bread crumb line.
I am a person, who can take in the contents of a picture with ease, it takes me half a second of looking at the tree view, to find out where my file is going to get saved. Reading the breadcrumb view takes MUCH longer (for me!), so the Gnome dialog is a nightmare (for me!). I always have to click on the "file browser" button to get a somewhat retarded graphical representation of where the file is going to be saved.

Reply Parent Score: 3