Linked by thesunnyk on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 22:14 UTC
Gnome "Gnome 3 has received a lot of disapproval of late, from the Gnome foundation being charged with not taking care of its users, or losing mindshare, to Gnome 3 itself being an unusable mess. I've been using Gnome 3 myself for a few months to sort the truth from the fiction, and to try and understand just how the Gnome foundation expects their newest shell to be used. I will end with some thoughts on how Gnome 3 can be improved. The review will require a fairly lengthy preface, however."
Thread beginning with comment 536217
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Everything hidden
by loic on Mon 24th Sep 2012 00:00 UTC
loic
Member since:
2012-09-23

I do beg to differ. Now that we all got huge screens, the latest fashion is to hide important stuff by default.
I mean, even my laptop has 1024p, my second screen is 24' 1600x1200, why should there only be one mighty fullscreen app on it? There is not a single website that can fill this 16/9 or 16/10 space with meaningful AND readable stuff. I don't even talk about applications in such a fullscreen environment. Give me back my tiled or tilable window manager.

I do like these workspaces concept, but why this hate with the hotspots? Do they mean to make every regular user (or average grand mother) flee while shouting about what this mess is? Make the interface explicit, stable, consistent in time. No, having an exposé mode, while practical, is by no way consistent, it's a hack and a good ole icons only taskbar does the trick. The only advantage of a exposé or alt-tab interface, is that I can have a quick look at the content.
Repeat after me: people do not like when stuff pop out of nowhere. It's confusing! And moving the cursor to a magical land should not be the way of popping up an event in a desktop. The start menu button is easy to understand 'cause when you push a button, you expect something to happen. Please don't change that single simple and efficient expectation for the desktop visual purity sake.

About the lack of separate application contexts, I do totally agree.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Everything hidden
by thesunnyk on Mon 24th Sep 2012 01:31 in reply to "Everything hidden"
thesunnyk Member since:
2010-05-21

"my second screen is 24' 1600x1200, why should there only be one mighty fullscreen app on it?"

I completely agree. I was fully expecting to hate fullscreen apps, but I didn't. An "app" used to mean something relatively simple with small windows (think "terminal") but the new idea for an "app" is something integrated (think IDE, like Eclipse)

As for "the fashion", I think it is perhaps because of these gigantic screens that people are looking to simplify the desktop. The "problem" is that you have these constant distractions pulling your eye and having you subconsciously thinking about them. Originally this was a UI thing of other applications "pulling focus" from the one you're working on, but it's going deeper into even showing you things that you shouldn't care about right now so you don't get into addictive behaviour patterns like constantly checking your email.

I had some trouble with your second last paragraph, so forgive me if I understood you wrong.

I care about productivity above all. In the end, you could "it's confusing" your way to skeuomorphism, and you'd probably end up with something far more like iOS. The thing to remember is, there is no button.

And you know Kung Fu.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Everything hidden
by adkilla on Mon 24th Sep 2012 06:15 in reply to "RE: Everything hidden"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

"Originally this was a UI thing of other applications "pulling focus" from the one you're working on, but it's going deeper into even showing you things that you shouldn't care about right now so you don't get into addictive behaviour patterns like constantly checking your email.


IANAD, but if you have a problem like that you could be suffering from OCD or worse, tourettes. While I doubt fullscreen apps will help with your condition, please seek professional help.

Edited 2012-09-24 06:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Everything hidden
by loic on Mon 24th Sep 2012 09:27 in reply to "RE: Everything hidden"
loic Member since:
2012-09-23

It was about implicit behavior which is definitely not a desired pattern.
The hotspots are by nature invisible: that is fundamental bad design. An application, even a desktop, should expose its behavior, make it explicit and consistent. A desktop interface is widget driven, you input text in text areas, click on buttons, drag icons around: it's visible, it's clickable, it's interactive. I expect something to happen when I interact with a visible widget. Even if my hands are not incredibly agile I can move the cursor around and then stop and click. First, choose the target interactive widget, then willfully click or type to achieve interaction. I choose, then validate and trigger something. An invisible hotspot is absolutely not consistent with these concepts: I move the cursor to a zone, then an unvalidated intrusive event happens. It's not a flyover tooltip, it's my entire screen content that gets replaced with another, unrelated context.

They could have at least used a workaround, like the "show desktop zone" of Windows 7 (bottom right) which is explicit.

Consistency is why Macs have only one button. The right button is the "mystery contextual menu"; you can hardly guess what the menu contains in an application. Of course, two or three or even more buttons (and keyboard shortcuts) are better for advanced users, but the point is that it leads to confusing, inconsistent and unexpected behaviors.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Everything hidden
by r_a_trip on Mon 24th Sep 2012 12:09 in reply to "RE: Everything hidden"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

The thing to remember is, there is no button.


Funny. There is indeed no button, but your reference to The Matrix is deliciously ironic. Why is there a Matrix? So real human beings can be interfaced to the digital world, without mentally overburdoning them with incomprehensible digital representations. The Matrix is the ultimate in skeuomorphism.

It's the same with our UI conventions. People need crutches to be able to communicate with digital entities. The more relatable something is, the easier it is to work with. So don't discount "the button that wasn't". It helps tremendously with finding our way in the endless patterns of on and off.

Reply Parent Score: 2