The KDE project started an effort to redesign its Kcontrol panel and here is the outcome so far (in CVS). Update: A developer’s article, how to build a KDE plugin structure.
Preliminary Work on a new KControl for KDE
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
To be honest i’m happy with kcontrol as is, but if they think they can do a better job with it good luck to em.. As long as it doesn’t become like gconf / windows registry i’m happy. I hope they also dont cut down the options, because the amount of options right now is nice, more would be a bonus.
This would certainly boast the usability of one of the core components of the KDE project. It looks great so far, but there is room for improvement.
A task-oriented design is the way to go, Kudos to the KDE team for their commitment to their users.
very good idea. I do not like the old kcontrol center that much, the new one looks much nicer.
In the new design, to reach to a settings, i will have to click 2 times (that too at different locations on screen)even if the item belongs to same category..A tree control was much better for faster navigation
This will cause more waste of time. I like the existing Tree Control much better….It is bloated but its faster to access
I think the new version looks great and will really help the new users to Kde.
On the comment about multiple button clicks, if you spend that much time in the control panel you have other problems. My guess is a typical user will visit this panel once a month at most. The new design should make sure that vist is not a pain.
my 2 cents.
Donaldson
(Yes I know about saving keystrokes etc, but sometimes
a few extra keystrokes (mouse clicks) makes the interface
usable by a wider audience (read less tech savy))
I’m talking about ‘What would you like to do’ = ‘Common Tasks’? How does apple do it’s control panel?
Great. This is an improvement that will certainly be appreciated by KDE newbies. By the way, they could include the tree kcontrol panel as an option
The new design should be the default of course. Power users can select the tree kcontrol panel to navigate faster. At any rate, kudos to the KDE folk.
“To be honest i’m happy with kcontrol as is, but if they think they can do a better job with it good luck to em.. ”
There’s always room for improvement.
“As long as it doesn’t become like gconf / windows registry i’m happy. ”
Oh I don’t think that will happen. And to everyone, Dopey isn’t saying that Gnome uses a registry. But that (s)he prefers neither.
“I hope they also dont cut down the options, because the amount of options right now is nice, more would be a bonus.”
And hence the division known as KDE and Gnome.
Well, this seems to be a very nice idea, I just hope it’s gonna be an option, like in Windows XP: the classic configuration screen is still available.
I’m used to KControl as it is, and it’s fine with me. but I do understand that for a lot of people KControl is a bit bloated.
is this new control panel in the beta ??
also i know htis is off topic but does anyone know if there is iso images for debian amd x86 -64 ?
Snake
The new kcontrol does look to be more user-friendly for the average user but I really hope they keep the existing one also (like Thom said above–a ‘classic’ and the ‘user-friendly’ versions that users can switch between).
Me too e.g. happy with it asis. The major difference is that Index, Search and Help in KControl are all visible at the same time in KControl3. Help is similarly visible at all times when you install Linux. It’s important for newbie’s or tasks you seldom perform. But white space is important too. I think there should be a mechanism to hide/unhide the help. But KControl3 looks more polished.
Usability to me is doing as much as possible with the mouse. Moving back and forth between keyboard and mouse is a drag.
I’m on SuSE. The last entry in KCOntrol is ‘YaST2 modules’. KControl asis deals with desktop configuration. YaST2 deals with system configuration. Redhat has similar. In Fedora by scripts named ‘system-config-<whatever>’. System configuration is the last bastion untouched by OpenSource. Don’t know why. Maybe because it is controlled by another body. Maybe it has changed too frequently. But I’d much rather see KDE expanding into providing native alternatives to YaST and ‘system-config-<whatever>’. Maybe for example a network config app like this
http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=10108&PHPSESSID=3a55b4…
is a seed that will grow.
Basically KDE doesn’t have built-in system configuration tools because of the perceived amount of work in building such tools. You have to consider the differences between distributions (and OSes – KDE runs on non-Linux OSes as well, such as FreeBSD). This is not to say this can’t be done though. An approach similar to KNetworkConf (http://knetworkconf.sourceforge.net/) which uses backend modules for different systems would work well, but still requires a lot of work.
“Me too e.g. happy with it asis. The major difference is that Index, Search and Help in KControl are all visible at the same time in KControl3. Help is similarly visible at all times when you install Linux. It’s important for newbie’s or tasks you seldom perform. But white space is important too. I think there should be a mechanism to hide/unhide the help. But KControl3 looks more polished.”
If you’ll notice, the help is displayed in a movable pane that can be resized/hidden/unhidden at will, much like the playlist bar in JuK.
I am very good at confusing input fields, it seems
It definitely looks nicer, but it really seems no different other than user interface.
In fact, the other one seemed a little more powerful. And it is probably just as easy to use.
After taking a better look at it and at the message, it definitely is an improvement and I hope it becoems default. It’s good that now the help can easily be seen to the left, the search is also easier too acess, I like the what’s this idea, and best of all you acess it all from one interface.
It seems now that the changes are a lot more than cosmetic, I fully support this as default.
Dying laughing…
I think that any Control Panel that needs a search engine just for the user to find something has serious issues. And people wonder why I don’t like KDE…
The “search engine” screenshot for those skeptical of my comment.
http://www.avenheim.online.fr/kcontrol3/search.png
The sheer configurability of KDE is something that most of its users love. I simply cannot go back to GNOME or WinXP because I KDE lets me set things up *exactly* the way I like it. You’ll literally have to rip the options out of the cold, dead hands of KDE users.
If configurability means a search engine for the control panel, then so what? Typing in exactly what you want to configure and letting the software do the work of finding it for you is a lot more efficient than staring at dozens of control panel widgets (XP’s control panel) trying to figure out which one has the option you want.
It’s not about ‘needing a search engine’, it’s about providing an additional way to access the Control Center modules. Some might prefer clicking through an hierarchy, others to query the Control Center for a specific keyword. The proposed design caters to both. It’s about enabling solutions for different types of users, and that’s a good thing.
@Rayiner Hashem:
The sheer configurability of KDE is something that most of its users love. I simply cannot go back to GNOME or WinXP because I KDE lets me set things up *exactly* the way I like it. You’ll literally have to rip the options out of the cold, dead hands of KDE users.
Yet, oddly I cannot configure KDE no matter how hard I’ve tried to behave exactly like I want…
The point is, extreme configurability is not necessarily a good thing. It increases the maintenance load, makes software more prone to errors, increases time for testing, especially regression testing, and dramatically increases the amount of documentation necessary.
There must be a healthy balance between configurability and simplicity. In my personal opinion I think KDE is too configurable at least from a highly user visible standpoint. Systems like GNOME and Windows are successful in highly structured corporate environments because of their simplicity. While power users may want and desire more the reality is that these systems are much easier to handle when it comes to training and documentation because of their consistency.
If your system is completely configurable, so much so that it can become almost unrecognizable from any sort of “standard”. Then when it comes time to help the user who has heavily cutosmized his system, you have greatly disadvantaged the technician trying to help.
So, I think I’m just going to have to agree to disagree with you and those who hold that view.
KDE has always had a philosophy of letting users configure a lot of things in their desktop. This means that there will be a ton of options in the control panel. Therefore there needs to be some new ideas for managing and finding the option you want. A simple search utility is a great idea, one that should be copied by Gnome/MS Windows too.
Oh yeah. and we really don’t care if you don’t like KDE.
Ever heard of KDE’s Kiosk mode? You can prevent users from configuring their system and lock it down to whatever configuration you want. Obviously a corporation would lock down their machines to a standard. For the rest of us we can have a choice as to how our desktop functions.
Yet, oddly I cannot configure KDE no matter how hard I’ve tried to behave exactly like I want…
Example? Without a specific example you’re just blowing smoke.
@leo:
Example? Without a specific example you’re just blowing smoke.
No more than you “Mr. Configurability is obviously better even though corporate environments remove configurability most of the way.” 8)
You took the words right out of my mouth. Just lock the interface down.
No more than you “Mr. Configurability is obviously better even though corporate environments remove configurability most of the way.” 8)
What? I’m saying that I and many other people enjoy being able to configure the desktop to their liking while the option to lock it down is still available for corporations.
Win-win situation as far as I can tell. You may have a point with software being harder to test if it has more options, however it’s obviously not a big issue since the progress of KDE is at least as fast as Gnome.
Funny, you waste bandwidth and time moaning about your KDE GUI issues and yet you never give us evidence of the type of desktop you want. Come on, where is a mock up example of this “dream desktop” you have in your mind.
This is typical of people like you. “I want to configure but I can’t be bothered learning to use the tools”. Here is a hint sunshine, 85% people don’t tweak their desktop, 10% do and 5% do nothing BUT tweak their desktop. It seems that the destop tweakers out there are able to follow basic instructions, why not you?
In addition to Shawn’s sentiments, if you have to tweak your desktop to use it, then it has serious issues. I spend a good 10-20 mins tweaking KDE on Knoppix just to use it.
What exactly do you have to change to make it useable?
Once again, if you think the defaults are no good, file a wishlist bug on bugs.kde.org. I think the defaults are fine but if you have a better idea, write exactly what you want to change and why and if its a good idea it will probably get done by the next release.
@Shawn: That doesn’t make any sense. KDE is designed to if you want to configure it, you can configure it. If you want to lock it down, you lock it down. It makes sense to have both options, because different people have different needs. What point are you really getting at?
@root: Being configurable is seperate from having to be configured. Currently, the problem with KDE is not so much that it is configurable, but it needs saner defaults. Currently, a lot of the KDE usability work is focused on making the defaults better.
I will never understand people who prefer a lack of options. A good default setup with nice, but claiming it is superior in that it gives you no options doesn’t makes sense.
I suppose KDE could use a little work on default desktop settings, but that is entirely a matter of opinion. The first thing I do with a fresh Windows XP install is make it look and behave like Win2K. That’s not a fault of WinXP, it’s just my personal preference.
I would think that other parts of KDE is in much more need of redesign than the control center. After all most people spend most of their days doing actual work instead of configuring their work environment. Ideally the user should get a good setup after running the setup wizzard the first time the user logs in.
I would say improvements to commonly used applications like konqueror, kmail and korganizer would do much more for the overall usability of KDE.
If we was to change the control center after all, it would probably be of more use to develop new controls so that yast and other distro specific configuration tools could be replaced.
Oh I don’t think that will happen. And to everyone, Dopey isn’t saying that Gnome uses a registry. But that (s)he prefers neither.
“I hope they also dont cut down the options, because the amount of options right now is nice, more would be a bonus.”
And hence the division known as KDE and Gnome.
Thanks BR for clarifying my point
re: @Shawn
By Rayiner Hashem (IP: —.res.gatech.edu) – Posted on 2004-02-29 00:20:10
The sheer configurability of KDE is something that most of its users love. I simply cannot go back to GNOME or WinXP because I KDE lets me set things up *exactly* the way I like it. You’ll literally have to rip the options out of the cold, dead hands of KDE users.
Amen to that.
This is what kcontrol and kde 3.2 has done for my desktop.
(note i have a dual head system and each display acts independantly, using an nvidia card ultra both deskops run kde and are extremly fast )
you know what i click konqueror and whack its loaded its superbly fast. (xp2600+, nvidia fx5700 ultra, 512 ram, kde 3.2, kernel 2.6.3 patched against nforce lockups, debian unstable)
the screenshots follow:
http://www.vamegh.co.uk/desktop1.jpg
http://www.vamegh.co.uk/desktop2.jpg
dont that look good ?
and whats the probability of some one else having the same look as mine ?
kde allows you to make your desktop as different as you are.
That has got to be the most horrid interface I’ve ever seen. A task-oriented UI makes things *harder* not easier. Ever watch a new user trying to configure XP? Very painful to watch, and even worse to try and help over a phone.
Web page UIs, task-oriented UIs, these are things that have been tried, and should now be abondened.
I don’t want to have to explain to someone how to click through a dozen different menus and icons and whatnot trying to find where to change some option. I want to be able to say, “Open the control panel, click the Network Icon, enter the required info, click OK.” Not, “I want to configure my networking settings –> I want to configure my network card –> I want to enter an IP address –> OK –> OK –> OK”.
“If we was to change the control center after all, it would probably be of more use to develop new controls so that yast and other distro specific configuration tools could be replaced.”
Hear, hear!
Earlier comment – ‘System Configuration’ by Paul Eggleton:
Well, Webmin can do it. Isn’t it more or less written by just one person? The list of supported OS is pretty extensive – http://www.webmin.com/support.html – allthough most are Linux derivates. Written in Perl, maybe that shields all the OS specifics.
But who says that all of KDE must be supported on all platforms. If too hard then support system config apps only on Linux.
Supporting only a specific platform is not in the spirit of KDE. KDE is a desktop for *all* UNIXs, not just Linux.
“Web page UIs, task-oriented UIs, these are things that have been tried, and should now be abondened. ”
Thank you very much for this comment, since I thought I was the only person who thinks like this
I _really_ like KDE 3.2 until now, but following some “usability”-threads they have now, I fear they just try to copy things from Windows XP.
And my main complaint are task-orientated interfaces, they are just useless.
So I also vote for the old kcontrol, maybe with some improvements, but the treeview at the left side is just essential.
I’m interested to see how this usability things turn out. Instead of copying XP, they’d do well to implement some sound UI principles ala classic MacOS. Simpler context menus and toolbars, verbs as button wording, good use of screen space, etc. Luckily, Aaron Asiago and the other usability guys seem to have good heads on their shoulders, so I’m optimistic.
Of course, KDE users are always optimistic. We’re like Mac people sometimes
Contrary to the majority of the opinions voiced on this comment section, too many options are actually a software design flaw. I, or you, shouldn’t have to reconfigure an application to use it. Like the Mac users’ mantra, it should just work. A good example of a well written application is Notepad for Windows. Well, it’s a text editor that just works. I don’t remember ever trying to reconfigure Notepad to use it. And I don’t remember any other person, I know, doing that. Well, I admit, I do change the font face and the font size to meet my aesthetic preference.
When software application provides you with an endless array of options, the developers are shifting the burden of providing a workable and sane interface from themselves to the user. To be blunt, the developers have failed to carefully weigh the implication of providing each feature against the necessity of providing the feature. The developers have failed to ask themselves basic application design questions: “What do users really need?”; “What is fluff?”, “What is just eye candy?”; “Why are we enabling the user toggle this option?”; “Why does the user need this feature?; to mention a few.
Take a look at Konqueror’s tool bar, extra tool bar, super extra tool bar, for example. Do you actually think the developers actually sat down why each an every and every feature on that tool bar deserves to be there? Or did they just slam all the features and options their because they could. Feature bloat and multitude of random options don’t make an application powerful, instead, they cause a monstrous amount of complexity, instability and usability error.
In an ideal environment, features can, or should, be added via separately maintained plug ins, at least to satisfy power user, or ordinary users, with rare needs. This issue is not peculiar to KDE alone, it rampant among many open source software applications and proprietary applications. In the commercial world, the more features you can tout, the marketable your product is. In the open source software world, the more bragging rights zealots have.
Using KDE doesn’t make you any more of a power user than someone who uses TWM, or Openbox, or even GNOME. Users tweak because they can, not be cause they necessarily have to. The KDE developers seem to think that providing and abundance of options empowers users. And KDE users seem to buy the idea. If you have to spend an inordinate amount of time tweaking your environment for it to function the way you want, it’s a good idea to file a bug report because you shouldn’t.
I disagree,
It takes me a very short time to change something.
I know where everything in kcontrol is. And kde 3.2 by default is very useable. Its up to the individual at the end of the day on how they like their desktop setup. Especially for home use.
Using KDE doesn’t make you any more of a power user than someone who uses TWM, or Openbox, or even GNOME. Users tweak because they can, not be cause they necessarily have to.
You dont have to with kde, 3.2 by default is fine. But its nice to modify the desktop to your own needs, and its nice to have all of the configuration aspects in one place. If you dont like it dont use kde as BR mentioned, its up to you if kde is not to your taste then use gnome, xfce, twm whatever you like. I would even say its harder to modify certain other wm’s for the simple fact that you cant be quite sure where the configuration options are, if you have to go searching through your whole home directory, to modify a simple thing then i think a definate bug report should be made.
If you have to spend an inordinate amount of time tweaking your environment for it to function the way you want, it’s a good idea to file a bug report because you shouldn’t.
but thats exactly it by providing us with all of the operations in one control center, it makes it much easier imho to modify something.
I think its a mistake to make the user go through more fields to to get to the same place. It should be as simple as it is now. I don’t understand the point of the search they are building it really doesn’t need it.
The complaints i would make is some of the obscure things. Which means you have to click on every option thing to get to it.
I remember before when you installed a style a new sub heading in appearance and themes would appear. This would give the specific configurations for that style (specifically for thin keramik and mosfets liquid) but that feature seems to have been now removed and instead of getting a new field directly in appearance and themes
you have a configure button in style.
Its not as obvious as before. If anything it adds more obscurity.
instead of doing the control panel *again* wouldnt it be better for linux to improve what makes linux unusable for the current windows users? i completely agree with that guy who had cups problems.
on windows you can nut it out yourself, goto support.microsoft.com or ring a friend. your more likely to get help from a friend on windows than linux because XYZ is always in the same place.
im not slamming everything non-windows but it seems that its kde vs windows, gnome vs windows, debian vs windows, redhat vs windows, and so on (even bash vs dos prompt and tcsh vs dos prompt maybe… i guess bash is pretty much defacto though). I dont CARE where the the X config files are kept i dont care if sys v init scripts are used or not and i dont care if its open source software or not. i would have thought the distros would have flocked to LSB and the like and put more efforts in making linux better than windows instead of copying the new windows control panel.
if i had to choose of a non windows os it would be freebsd with a gnome front end (i hate my emac *frown* but thats another rant) but sadly i cant (work reasons, gpmc and admin tools etc)
Disclaimer: not trying to offend
Gaz
This is not the first time I see bloat in the same sentence with KDE. I’m not sure what it is about. If there is any then it is at least not in the way. It’s almost as if it is being hunted for to complain about it.
‘super extra toolbar’? That’d probably be bloat. I use the extra toolbar in file manager mode. For easy access to split screen. Which works well.
But it is an interesting thought taking configurability to extremes. It then almost becomes programming. Composing your own UI’s from atomic components.
@Kaiwainz
Here is a hint sunshine, 85% people don’t tweak their desktop, 10% do and 5% do nothing BUT tweak their desktop. It seems that the destop tweakers out there are able to follow basic instructions, why not you?
Well, then by your logic KDE shouldn’t be spending any time on adding options or making things ultra-configurable, because it’s a waste of time since the majority of their users will never want to change the default settings 8) So, perhaps KDE’s time would be better spent (by your logic) on improving the quality, stability, and robustness of their interface…
You’ve made yet another case for not making an ultra-configurable desktop. Thanks!
“Ever heard of KDE’s Kiosk mode? You can prevent users from configuring their system and lock it down to whatever configuration you want. Obviously a corporation would lock down their machines to a standard. For the rest of us we can have a choice as to how our desktop functions. ”
Of course what isn’t made clear is that the company has quite a few “options” to go through to get the “standard” first. As opposed to the “lesser options” gone through to get a standard. Both of course can be pushed out to the clients, and locked down.
@root: Most of KDE’s features are quite modular, at least from the user’s point of view. Toolbar items each have their own KAction, and its trivial to remove them. In the code, options are pretty well abstracted out, again thanks to the KAction mechanism. And KDE’s options are there because KDE developers don’t assume they know better than their users. And its not like KDE has *that* many options. For example, Konqueror’s options dialog isn’t really any more complex than IE’s, and Kate’s isn’t more complex than BBEdit’s. Simple apps like JuK don’t even have configuration dialogs. Can you name any options that really don’t need to be there?
@Shawn: KDE isn’t about pleasing the vast majority of users. Its about pleasing KDE users. KDE is a community project, and that’s the only way it can exist. Of course, with KDE’s technology, it doesn’t have to necessarily be a zero-sum game. First, a lot of usability gains can be made that are benificial to both types of users. Second, many of the things in contention (complex toolbars, complex context menus) are described simply by XML files, and can modified quite easily tailored to different types of users.
KDE will never be as spartan as GNOME (those config options won’t get buried in something like gconf), but there are a lot of gains that can be made within the current framework.
You question my use of the term “bloat”. Well, perhaps I need to define what I term “bloat”. A bloated software application is one which inundates its users with needless, unnecessary and duplicate features and/or functionality. Microsoft Office will be a prime example of a bloated application.
I look at the KDE environment and I witness a wealth of unbelievable, and sometimes impressive, options and features that overwhelm me. Sadly, many of these options fall under needless innovations. The KDE developers take pride in exhibiting the KDE technologies, and go over board with it.
It’s almost as if features and options are added just because it can be done, not necessarily because it is needed. You talk about split screens in Konqueror. That is perhaps a valid example of a needless default feature. I hardly use it. I know of no one who uses it, except you. Your average Mac users wouldn’t use. Your average Window users wouldn’t use it. Joe-what-the-hell-is-a-browser wouldn’t dream of using it. So why is it a default feature in Konqueror? Well, the answer is because it can be.
Do not assume, I’m deemphasizing your needs. The fact that you use the split screen feature alone is justifiable for its existence. But should it be a default option or feature? In my opinion, not at all. Instead, I would have provided such functionality via a plug in to carter for rare user needs, like yours. Now go through most of the options in Kcontrol center, and you will pick out a multitude of features which should not be a default part of KDE. Or even features that duplicate another features functionality.
You would soon begin to understand why many people attribute the term bloated to KDE. It is really not a matter of what you can or cannot do. Instead it is trying to step in the shoes of what 90% of your users need to do without intimidating, confusing or distracting them with options/features.
It is certainly not an interesting thought to take reconfigurability to extremes. Yes, it might thrill you or programmers. But it shows the programmer aren’t thinking about end users, but about showing off technology to peers, hence abusing it. While I think Konqueror is a very good application, I think it is bloated because it tries to do way to many things at once and has an abundance of features that I have to manually turn off or disable before it becomes usable for me.
Split screens are very useful. That fact that the average Mac or Windows user would not use it says more about them than about KDE. I mean, why bother going beyond what people have been conditioned to expect, right?
Anyway, unlike some of the more egregious features of Konqueror (the “security” item in the context menu that does nothing more than tell you if the page your are using is SSL-encrypted) split screens is just an entry in the “window” menu. I really don’t see how it affects you if you don’t use it. Unlike toolbars and context menus, which are supposed to be optimized for quick access, main menus should offer a complete catalog of application features, and it is thus acceptable for them to be a bit more fleshed-out than the former two.
“@root: Being configurable is seperate from having to be configured. Currently, the problem with KDE is not so much that it is configurable, but it needs saner defaults. Currently, a lot of the KDE usability work is focused on making the defaults better.”
But isn’t it remarkable how soon the defaults of GNOME started to become nice, when they started to throw out pointless configurability? That has been the idea[1] and it proved to be true.
Meanwhile, another release of KDE came out and I see no difference in that regard (I’m sure there is one, but it’s too marginally for me to notice). While it might be possible, it obviously seems to be very hard and nobody could do it yet.
I don’t want to bash KDE, just the idea of adding countless customizability.
It doesn’t make KDE completely useless, I just don’t like to use it mainly because of this reason.
[1] http://ometer.com/free-software-ui.html
Frankly I would much rather have a few options that take up a tiny amount of space rather than developers giving me unchangeable defaults which they THINK are best for me.
Much better to waste a few pixels and mbs than waste a few hours because some smart ass developer says you don’t NEED that OPTION.
Another point I want to stress is, that good usability isn’t about selecting just a subset of the available features. I’ll use the Muine Music Player as a positive example. Its interface doesn’t just rock because it only contains a few items, but because someone sat down and actually thought about what a user really wants to do with a music player and how this could be made possible in a simple, convenient and efficient way.
This kind of thinking is what leads to interfaces which excite me and increase both my enjoyment and my productivity.
And this is also the reason why just removing default items from a KDE interface doesn’t magically make it more usable. Easier, maybe, but not better.
I’m all for choice, but I’d much rather see different applications trying different approaches to do something, than one application which tries to please everyone but does it badly.
Rayiner Hashem’s response:@root: Most of KDE’s features are quite modular, at least from the user’s point of view. Toolbar items each have their own KAction, and its trivial to remove them. In the code, options are pretty well abstracted out, again thanks to the KAction mechanism. And KDE’s options are there because KDE developers don’t assume they know better than their users. And its not like KDE has *that* many options. For example, Konqueror’s options dialog isn’t really any more complex than IE’s, and Kate’s isn’t more complex than BBEdit’s. Simple apps like JuK don’t even have configuration dialogs. Can you name any options that really don’t need to be there?
KDE developers know a lot better about their software and computer related matters than majority of their users. That’s akin to insinuating that a medical doctor should allow me choose which prescription I need for my ailment and shouldn’t assume he knows better than me, with regards to human anatomy and related issues. Have you met users who are afraid to click on tool bars because they think the computer will explode?
Konqueror has an awful amount of options, perhaps primarily because it doubles as a file manager too. But my point is not to compare Konqueror to IE or any other browser. My intention is only to point out that a multitude of options is not an attributed that should be touted as a software applications prowess, but rather a weakness on the part of developers to provide sane defaults.
Can I name an option that I really don’t need to be there? I can, but they are too many to mention. So I’ll just expatiate on one or two. To begin with, I see no reason why KDE should ship with 3 editors. I think that is unnecessary as it duplicates functionality and wastes storage space. I don’t know about KDE-3.2, but the KDE3.1 series shipped with multimedia applications that were virtually useless, kaboodle and company. That was absolutely needless. KDE allows users to configure themes, window styles, window decorations, color of fonts within window style, and to make matters worst, most of these duplicate existing functionality available in another configuration section. Why not just have a theme manager that is responsible for window styles, window decorations, and icons, like GNOME.
That way users just need to select a theme they like, instead of configuring every little widget component that makes up the theme, including fonts and font color. Again, this might not be confusing to you and 2% of KDE users, but try asking your average Window or Mac user what a widget means? You’d be surprised at the response you get.
Yes, at first it is impressive, when users can change this or that. Well, until they do nothing but changing and changing and changing and doing nothing productive but changing until they eventually screwing something up, only for them to write a bug report that even the developers can’t decipher. I remember having issues with Konqueror that developers could not reproduce because according to them I had a weird set up.
I’ve done this several times. I launched epiphany and konqueror maximized on computers side by side. And called any random member of the family to use either computers to visit http://www.google.com. On all occasions, the users have always used epiphany. That says something. Well if not to you, to me. That says one of them was designed with the users in mind. Now, do you think the users cared if the Konqueror was more modular and had spiffy technologies like Kaction, could split screens on the fly, had the power to translate websites from English to other languages and vice versa, could use encryption technologies, could allow users to change the tool bar or what have you?
Yeah, Kaction and modularity impresses you and I as users and computer enthusiasts, but about 90% of users, including me, could care less if Konqueror did without out it to provide a sane defaults and less intimidating interfaces.
Not really a point in debating with someone who does not have the mindset to learn, but simpyl to convince himself and others that he is right.
The doctor example applies very well to software. Software gives you the defaults, which is like the doctor’s prescription, but I do not believe that the patient should have no choice at all, that is ridiculous. The doctor provides his recommendation, but he tells the user each option he can choose for his treatment and lets them decide. Also, just like in software, the same treatment isn’t the best for everyone.
What are you doing? This is not a discussion about details, but rather about principles of good UI design. Also, from your post it seems clear to me that you are not very familiar with KDE. For example, KDE has long had a theme manager, one much better than the one in GNOME, it was jsut recently removed due to some bugs and an antique architecture, a new and improved version will come out in 3.3 or 4. KDE does ship with 3 editors, but they are not the same, KDE will get rid of the others as soon as the featureset of Kate includes what the others have which it lacks, such as bidi support. Looks are deceiving. Fonts are never reffered to as widgets and I don’t know a single theme in KDE 3.2 where you NEED to configure widgets.
Your little usability study also doesn’t say anything. It depends how each was configured, what desktop you were running, what website, which window was active, etc. Besides, the Mozilla engine does render websites better than Konqueror. But hoensly I think Epiphany is not sucha great browser, I hate its bookmarking system for example.
Rayiner Hashem’s response:Split screens are very useful. That fact that the average Mac or Windows user would not use it says more about them than about KDE. I mean, why bother going beyond what people have been conditioned to expect, right?
Perhaps we need to ask the question, who are split screens useful to? The fact that the average Mac or Windows user do not use them says that, may be, they are really not that useful. After all, a useful feature is one used by many people or that generic users can not do without. Power user features can sanely be implemented and maintained as a separate plug in.
Rayiner Hashem’s response:Anyway, unlike some of the more egregious features of Konqueror (the “security” item in the context menu that does nothing more than tell you if the page your are using is SSL-encrypted) split screens is just an entry in the “window” menu. I really don’t see how it affects you if you don’t use it. Unlike toolbars and context menus, which are supposed to be optimized for quick access, main menus should offer a complete catalog of application features, and it is thus acceptable for them to be a bit more fleshed-out than the former two.
The issue is not whether or not split screens disturb me. The issue is whether it should even exist by default. The issue isn’t whether the main menu should offer a complete catalog of application features. The issue is whether the catalog contains a bunch of needless or useless cruft.
Here is an Epiphany like Konqueror from Raynier: http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg990h/kde_32_screenshots/kde-fonts-h…
Quite a difference IMO.
But isn’t it remarkable how soon the defaults of GNOME started to become nice, when they started to throw out pointless configurability?
Correlation does not prove causation. The GNOME people just through out the baby with the batwater, ’tis all. Besides, that’s also when they had a had a huge number of existing GNOME users migrate away from the platform. GNOME continues to exist, to a great degree because of its corporate support, but the community is not nearly as supportive and involved as the KDE community.
While it might be possible, it obviously seems to be very hard and nobody could do it yet.
Its not so much that its hard (its really easy), its just that nobody wants to do it. If people wanted to, they would have done it by now. That said, I’d like to see the KDE UI streamlined too. However, I think it can be done without pissing off all existing KDE users in the process. I’ve been meaning to get around to writing a “profile manager” to manage custom toolbar and menu setups, so you could just download an existing “theme” instead of customizing things yourself. Eh, maybe over spring break
HI
”
Perhaps we need to ask the question, who are split screens useful to? The fact that the average Mac or Windows user do not use them says that, may be, they are really not that useful. After all, a useful feature is one used by many people or that generic users can not do without. Power user features can sanely be implemented and maintained as a separate plug in.
”
hey. common man. that doesnt make sense. what majority uses is what is available to them. not really what is required or what could be ideal
look at tabbed browsing in every other browser except ie. every user i have talked to wants tabbed browsing once he gets used to it but the majority wont use it because they dont know such features and they are not used to it. when you want to satisfy your users you will have to go alteast a little beyond user expectations. that a fundemntal law in software engineering.
split screens in konqueror are very very useful and should be available by default. those of the many users who are used to norton file commander or mc or old gmc or any such clones would be extremely comfortable
again this is why kde offers that particular feature. you dont want it. dont use it. its not something in your face or what could distrub you. there are better examples in kde which could be improved
for example) the split between konqueror as the filemanager and konqueror as the browser needs to be more clear in settings dialog boxes and work is being done on it but split screens are not the problem really.
rahul
I’ve used KDE ever since 2.* series up until the KDE-3.1.* series. I remember clearly that you could alter individual properties of widgets, colors, fonts as well as window decorations. I haven’t extensively tested the KDE-3.2, because I don’t have the time to nor I’m I motivated to do so anytime soon. My analogy regarding doctors still hold. Doctors know a lot more about human anatomy than patients as do software developers know a lot more about applications than users. As a result they are capable of making informed assumptions about their users or clients.
Secondly, I’m not talking about KDE in it’s present incarnation not what it claims to be by 3.3 or 3.4. Finally, my usability study while not extravagant or completely scientific, but it does demonstrate that users were less terrified by Epiphany’s interface than Konqueror’s. I failed to mention these were default set ups. But I did mention that the application screens where maximized so the users couldn’t see the background and had very little what environment or operating system they are running.
This is not about me being right or wrong. It’s about sane interfaces and sane default options. For example, I think defaults with reduced resource mode should be used over those with maximum resource mode. If users however want animation and the bells and whistles, then they can manually turn them on. Every desktop environment I know enables the maxim resource mode by default. I think that is inconsiderate of users and many times gets in the users way.
To begin with, I see no reason why KDE should ship with 3 editors. I think that is unnecessary as it duplicates functionality and wastes storage space.
KDE ships with only as many editors as your distribution ships with it. Debian ships each editor in a seperate package. More than one KDE edit exists, but that’s because they are for seperate purposes. kwrite is like Notepad, Kate is like BBedit, and KEdit is for internationalized text.
I don’t know about KDE-3.2, but the KDE3.1 series shipped with multimedia applications that were virtually useless, kaboodle and company.
You’ve got me on that one. Noatun and its ilk refuse to die. Hopefully, when Amarok is mature, it’ll go the way of the dodo.
KDE allows users to configure themes, window styles, window decorations, color of fonts within window style, and to make matters worst
The theme manager is no longer in KDE 3.2, so there is no longer any duplication. As for allowing you to configure fonts, window decorations, and window styles, GNOME lets you select all those seperately too! Come to think of it, so does Windows!
Look, I’m not arguing about providing saner defaults. I’m all for saner defaults. What I’m not in favor of is going the GNOME route and removing features in the process. If Microsoft has proved anything, it is that users like lots of features. Why do you think people are so enamoured with Office? The best KDE can do is to keep those features, but allow people to ship cut-down versions of the interface to suit particular tastes.
Everyone siting instances of what a good UI is, or those saying KDE isn’t a good interface, you are simply lemmings.
These are all things others have decided, what makes a good UI is that it suites YOUR every needs. Things need to be easy to find, and logically placed. KDE gives you options that allow you to have the UI YOUR way, no other desktop does to that extreme.
I have heard the argument that you don’t need options if its well designed in the first place, but thats not the case. Good designe means something different to everyone. GNOME and Mac OS X both look the same basically no matter who’s desktop it is. I can make KDE look like any other desktop, or I can make it original. I can make Konqueror look simplistic, I can make it look complicated. No matter what though, it hardly reacts slow no matter how much customization I perform.
I would love to see some screenshots of mockups they are doing for the control panel, however I will not comment until I see them. And for the person who commented that the need for a search tool requirement is rediculous, I’ll be damned if I can find anything I want to do within 10 mins using GNOME.
For the record however, I currently use GNOME, so perhaps this will silence any flames this might produce. I do however hate the GNOME interface in general, however many good applications require GTK etc, and its the best desktop for GTK (yes I have looked at a few, names of which escape me, they just didn’t perform as expected, and also follow the damn HIG too much). I am also aware of gtk-qt, however I am yet to successfully configure it, thus am stuck with GNOME for now.
A consistent look and feel is more important then to me then the interface itself, and the GNOME folks are religous enough to force there look and feel on to many projects, its simple fact. If more people voiced this as a reason to why GNOME was better, I might not laugh at them so much. GNOME will suck as long as it still complies with HIG, hopefully one day they will drop it though.
To me, the HIG basically states “thou shalt make software interfaces suck as much as Windows interfaces, thou shalt not laugh that we like it”. I have stated once, and I will state it a million times, the only GNOME apps that are decent break about 10-50 HIG rules. One example of an application that doesn’t break many though is Dia, one of the worst tools available for any desktop system.
/me gets the water ready to put out the probable flames
I actually like the new interface actually, just notices the screenshot links. My only complaint is the fonts example, appears to be no easy way to get back to the main ‘index’.
I really can’t wait to use this though, it truly seems nice. Very professional, and alot cleaner. I really hope they do keep a ‘back’ button though, or some way to just quickly go back to the ‘index’. Actually I would like to see both on the side panel part. Overall though, I really do like this, I hope they clean up even more of the interfaces so people can stop complaining (provided of course that we don’t lose anything in the process, I can deal with re-learning something, but I can’t deal with something being crippled on account of morons who don’t take the time to figure something out)
If KDE and GNOME would have the same defaults, look and feel exactly the same, and KDE keeps all its configurability, would you still think, GNOME is superior to KDE because you cannot configure it as much as you can configure KDE? And if so, would deleting kcontrol then make KDE as useable as GNOME? Sounds pretty strange, doesn’t it?
I think it is a very good thing that KDE is as configurable as it is. I would really like KDE to become even more configurable, e.g. make it possible to replace kicker by slicker or kxdocker. What’s wrong with that? If you don’t like to do that, don’t do it.
I also think, KDE should work on the usability, make defaults better, make there programs easier to use for newbies e.g. But in my opinion, this has nothing to do with the number of options. It has to do with sane defaults.
Can you make your GNOME look like this
http://intellectualheaven.com/desktop.jpg
I’m not vehement on KDE developers stripping every known feature in KDE. In fact, there are a lot of very powerful features in KDE that I yearn for in other environments. At the risk of turning this into a KDE vs GNOME debacle, there I things I absolutely despise about GNOME.
I still haven’t figured out how to launch different applications on different virtual desktops via the terminal or a start up script in GNOME. The plug in that enables such functionality in GNOME is just unusable. Among other things GNOME is only beginning to be as modular as KDE is.
I’m really not advocating that KDE developers should turn KDE into GNOME, that’ll be will be way too boring. I’m just pointing out a general software design flaw in open source development in general. A lot of responders seem to think rearranging the tool bar automatically rectifies KDE’s usability issues. That’s far from the truth.
What open source software developers need to do is to think more about their interface design right from the core. When I launch an application, I want to start working with it instantaneously, with little or no hesitation and having no need to tweak or customize anything except for trivial stuff like fonts or locale.
In other words, functionality I need should be hard coded in the application. And the default setting should feel intuitive enough for me, my mother, or Joe to use without having to resort to some configuration template. I gave Notepad as an example earlier. You’d be surprised how many coders use Notepad on Windows because of it’s simplicity. Unlike IDE’s that require you to read a 200 page manual for you to use them, or to set multitude of variables to get them running “the way you like it”.
I think KDE developers need to evaluate whether they are providing features just for the sake of it or whether it is really needed. For reasons beyond my understanding, there seems to be a phobia for throwing away cruft in KDE land. Again, simple and usable applications that can be extended via plug ins, if necessary. Unfortunately, this just happens to be a KDE thread, I do think the majority of open source developers need to start thinking more about users of their applications rather the technologies their application can show off.
It just involves creating an awareness nothing more. You don’t have to be a usability expert to write usable apps or to provide sane defaults and sane options. You only need to think like a dumb user, you are half way through.
Umm, dude thats almost default, and at best its a bad example of a nice KDE desktop, I was expecting to see something that looked good, damn you…
Damn it took me 30 minutes to make this up in KDE and its not default you dumbo. i like it so much its neat;) Most of the ones i see from people are cluttered ones.. See this one has no desktop icon…i like this clean interface.
Many people seem to forget just how much KDE depends on its users to add features. GNOME has the support of many prominent companies, companies that dictate many things with what they want in mind.
This is why GNOME will always be more successful in business’ etc, where the features aren’t wanted or needed. People in an office are paid to do a job, and administrators likely don’t wish to learn Kiosk to sufficiantly limit users. GNOME doesn’t appear to promote users making themselves at home for lack of a better term. There are very limited options, very little to allow your mind to wander away from what your actually trying to accomplish. In turn, its probably the most boring Desktop Environment in use today. Some likely see this as a good thing.
KDE is basically open to anyone making contributions so long as it doesn’t break to much other stuff. Its the culmination of what thousands of people wanted enough to do themselves. Nothing is implementated that someone didn’t want, the community in general is very open to ideas. Its more fun to use and develop for. Most KDE developers I have seen have a very selfish view on what they want for their applications, but due to it being open source, others can also add what they want. Some will probably see this as chaos though.
I am a huge fan of KDE, I am a big fan of being in complete control over what I want my desktop to look and feel like. However, I currently use GNOME because more applications fit in as I said. GTK-QT seems the perfect thing for me, and I hope it is implemented in the mainstream KDE very soon. I really hate GNOME as an environment, but its still the second best option for FOSS in general. KDE is leaps and bounds above even Mac OS X and Windows for me, but GAIM beats Kopete right now, GIMP beats – ummm, uhh – KolourPaint hands down. I find myself using these apps a lot, but am seriously missing KDE in general right now.
ooo i like your desktop specially the wallpaper. Any chance that i can grab it from somewhere?
“So why is it (split screen) a default feature in Konqueror?”
It is not. It’s on the extra toolbar which is not enabled by default.
“I would have provided such functionality via a plug in …”
I’d be fine with that. The extra toolbar option wouldn’t exist until you install the plugin. That’s how jEdit works (the best there is – in my opinion).
“To begin with, I see no reason why KDE should ship with 3 editors.”
You’re getting off topic. This is different from options WITHIN an application. But I agree. The KDE menu was the worst. Messy, duplication, same item in different submenu’s, items that did not work, etc. But it’s gotten a lot better.
But in some cases the responsible party is different. Applications are selected by the packagers. Application configurability options by the developers.
Applications – except for the best one in each category – should be as plugins – something you download as desired.
Its using Keramik and Crystal.
The only mods I see are no desktop icons, something I do anyway. You changed the background, and centered kicker. You also cluttered kicker, and changed the background of the clock. Lastly, you replaced the taskbar with the wmaker-like panel (the name escapes me right now). If you did more, please tell me, but it seems hard to believe that all this took 30mins, maybe about 5…
I still don’t believe it to be a good example of a ‘pretty’ kde desktop. Keramik is just ugly overall. Its possibly the worst default theme available for anything, even competing with wmaker’s default window manager theme for ugliness. This is of course only my opinion.
Still, over at http://www.kde-look.org, there certainly are a lot better examples of what KDE is capable of in terms of cosmetics…
of course you can do that in GNOME. There is [i]nothing[/] at all difficult about that. Just a bottom panel, which you can make as big as you want with a menu launcher, and a side panel that expands as you open more programs. That is very doable with GNOME.
Can you make GNOME look like this:
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg990h/kde_32_screenshots/kde-fonts-h…
I’ll save you the trouble: no you cannot. And these changes are not just cosmetic, they are functional:
– Menubar at top: Saves space, takes advantage of Fitts law.
– Windows can overlap any panel (including menubar): Saves space, but unlike with autohide, panels are still usually visible.
– Desktop icons off: Desktop icons are distracting
– Dock-style taskbar: Easier to see, less aiming to select
Umm, you realize how much this topic has been hammered on? Its been explained many times.
kate – good for text based system configuration
kwrite – same backend as kate, basic text editing
kedit – good internationalization, will be dropped when kate and kwrite are up to scratch.
GNOME on the other hand distributes ONE text editor, and expects it to be the end and be all of editing short of a full word processor. It is not possible for a single tool to do everything for everyone, Gedit on the other hand seems to do nothing for anyone peticularly well. Its perhaps the worst tool distributed with GNOME.
KOffice also has KWord, which is a nice word processor, but its certainly overkill for basic editing, where kwrite excels.
(disclaimer: if kedit actually is the one that uses the same backend as kate, s/kwrite/kedit/ accordingly. I just know that one is has better internationilization support, and will be dropped when the others catch up)
Perhaps we need to ask the question, who are split screens useful to? The fact that the average Mac or Windows user do not use them says that, may be, they are really not that useful
When I first used KDE (2.x), I was a windows user. But I found that split screen is the most useful thing in KDE. In fact I really miss this feature in winXP.
Frank: It took me 30 minutes because that was the first time i was configuring KDE. May be it will take you only 5 minutes. Also i am from windows world, so it was pretty exciting for me to do this, i liked the whole configurability of KDE.
The side bar is Kas Bar and by the way, i love Keramik theme. If you think its ugly, its your opinion, i simply love it.
Maynard: Nice to know you can do this in GNome, i once tried to do it in GNome but may be because i am new to Linux, i couldn’t find the right options in GNome to do it.
Bottomline: Keep the configurability of KDE. We love it.
Thats a little more like it. Something that shows off KDE better.
I am not a fan of the MacOS-style menu bars, and do not see how they are functional however. They don’t appear to provide more space either, they subtract space on the desktop in fact. Its cool that you *can* do that in mainstream KDE however.
The OSX-style launcher doesn’t appear to be stock KDE, it appears to be something implemented by Slicker, although Slicker usually looks more, umm, slick
It certainly is better then Wolf’s desktop though
Mine is usually quite boring. Black background, Plastik theme, Crystal SVG icons. Centered auto-hidding panel, with limited icons, and generally basic. No icons on desktop, no use of Slicker or (super)Karamba etc. Always change right click to “Application Menu”, and middle click to “Desktop Menu” though. Thats about all I do these days, I used to get creative, but after enough reinstalls, you eventually stop I think.
Then again, I am not taunting people with statements of “my desktop is better then yours can possibly be” etc…
Then again, afaict, you can’t get rid of icons on GNOME’s desktop. His side bar (damnit, I still can’t remember the name), has no GNOME alternative. The clock isn’t customizable like KDE’s. The Mac OS X style menu is not possible for GNOME. Also, my right click for Application Menu is not possible either.
On the other hand, I still don’t get why your bottem and left panels are both there, they appear to both be the same?
Oh, and Wolf, I think its time to upgrade to KDE 3.2, those aren’t the SVG set, they are kind of ugly by comparison.
I am not a fan of the MacOS-style menu bars, and do not see how they are functional however. They don’t appear to provide more space either, they subtract space on the desktop in fact.
The nice thing about MacOS style menubars is that they obey Fitts law. And since in KDE, you can allow windows to overlap the menubar (they pop up when you move our mouse to the edge of the screen), you don’t lose any space either. In fact, you gain space because windows end up being smaller. Getting rid of the menubar also makes windows look less cluttered.
The OSX-style launcher doesn’t appear to be stock KDE, it appears to be something implemented by Slicker, although Slicker usually looks more, umm, slick
That’s not a great screenshot. I used it simply because it was already there. The one in the screenshot is a special patch for Kasbar.
On the other hand, I still don’t get why your bottem and left panels are both there, they appear to both be the same?
Left panel is shortcuts, bottom panel is taskbar. If they were on the same panel, it’d confuse the hell out of me
KasBar, ahh, thats its name
I am happy you switched from Windows however, one more for the good guys. While I wasn’t insulting you in any way, it appears you took it as such. I am only saying that its relatively simple, you will get much more creative when you discover Slicker and Karamba I am sure. I highly recommend trying some stuff with both though, you can do some very nice things.
One key to your desktop though, it appears to be as little like Windows as you can make it, like that was a primary objective or something. You should avoid that is my assumption is correct, Windows isn’t evil. KDE/Linux is simply better in many aspects. Things Windows did well are still possible with KDE, and are still good technically.
One thing we agree on though, all KDE users state customizability as its most redeming quality. Its the one thing that seperates it from the competition. Its truly the only environment that is entirely for and by its users. Thats a very special quality. Perhaps it makes the environment more complicated, but it doesn’t take long to figure stuff out. The things most state as being the negative points for KDE seem to be my favorates. The KCM’s in KDE are nice, they are what Kontrol comprises of, its a very good example of KParts. Kontrol is basically one big example of KParts, another good example is Kontact. KParts compete heavily as my favorate feature of KDE with the overall configuration. I love the configuration, but then I notice an instance of KParts in action, and remember how much I love them also.
The nice thing about MacOS style menubars is that they obey Fitts law. And since in KDE, you can allow windows to overlap the menubar (they pop up when you move our mouse to the edge of the screen), you don’t lose any space either. In fact, you gain space because windows end up being smaller. Getting rid of the menubar also makes windows look less cluttered.
Still not entirely sure what you are refering to as ‘Fitts law’, oh well…
I only attempted to use this feature however in a beta version of KDE3.2, and it was somewhat unusable dispite being in prior versions. I pretty much gave up on it since, and never had the oppertunity to really get used to it on MacOS…
Left panel is shortcuts, bottom panel is taskbar. If they were on the same panel, it’d confuse the hell out of me
I think I will just take your word for it here… umm, give me a hint, how do they differ in practice?
Can you make GNOME look like this:
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg990h/kde_32_screenshots/kde-fonts-h…..
I’ll save you the trouble: no you cannot. And these changes are not just cosmetic, they are functional:
– Menubar at top: Saves space, takes advantage of Fitts law.
– Windows can overlap any panel (including menubar): Saves space, but unlike with autohide, panels are still usually visible.
– Desktop icons off: Desktop icons are distracting
– Dock-style taskbar: Easier to see, less aiming to select
/me sighs
The menu bar at the top is unwarranted. It saves you no space whatsoever. It takes space from application windows but sacrificies space on the desktop. It only serves to confuse most users when they have a multitude of applications open.
Panels in gnome have their uses. When users minimize their application, it hides itself on the panel. And when they need to maximize their applications, guess where to go hunting for it? You can have side panels in GNOME and all what not, but again, you’d represent 1% of the users that do that.
Desktop icons are useful. And add to an object oriented approach to using your desktop. The new spatial nautilus for example is efficiently used when shortcut to most used directories are placed on the desktop. Cluttered desktops however are bad.
The dock-style taskbar wastes screen estate on lower resolution monitors.
Apart from the Mac style application menu, you can make GNOME can look just like KDE and often times sexier with apps like gdesklet. Heck, you can do most of these stuff in non GNOME desktops like XFCE4.
Don’t use bold again…
Ouch, thats just ugly
You get rid of icons in gnome via the nautilus configuration. Or you can simply delete the icons of the desktop.
I am not sure if this has been suggested by any other reader but I believe an icon driven interface would be better. Just like the Windows Control Panel. It would be good as long as they don’t use Konqueror to display the icons. Make it more stylish. Red Hat had it once….an original once I think in version 7.0 before the blue curve came out.
The clock in gnome is customizable, left-click -> prefrences. Also you can use side bars in GNOME. Did you say you use GNOME? Because to me you appear to touting the fact that you use GNOME, yet you just describe your KDE desktop set up and most of the things you clamor are not possible in GNOME are.
The menu bar at the top is unwarranted. It saves you no space whatsoever. It takes space from application windows but sacrificies space on the desktop. It only serves to confuse most users when they have a multitude of applications open.
Its not confusing, whichever application is open is who’s options are listed. The GNOME panel takes away from desktop space also, but serves no purpose when using a different application, but as stated, it can be hidden.
Panels in gnome have their uses. When users minimize their application, it hides itself on the panel. And when they need to maximize their applications, guess where to go hunting for it? You can have side panels in GNOME and all what not, but again, you’d represent 1% of the users that do that.
The list option for minimized applications is something I like about GNOME. It, however, is not the default. The default is to have two panels, one at the top, one at the bottem, wasting alot of desktop space for no good reason.
Also, when hiding a GNOME panel, it tends to not come back. I am aware I told it to hide, but thats not quite what I meant. I am not too sure if this is a bug, or it was done on purpose, but I have seen it in 2.2 and 2.4 now.
And despite being only 1% of users, overlooking you pulled this number out of your rear, it is still a large number of users. Choosing to state this basically proves an earlier point valid, GNOME users are lemmings as to what a desktop environment should feel like.
Desktop icons are useful. And add to an object oriented approach to using your desktop. The new spatial nautilus for example is efficiently used when shortcut to most used directories are placed on the desktop. Cluttered desktops however are bad.
No one stated they aren’t useful, the fact that you *cannot* get rid of them is my problem. Again, this fits into the lemming stereotype, just because *you* don’t see a need to get rid of them doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t. Also, file me in here, how does getting rid of icons create a more cluttered look? I get rid of icons to unclutter my desktop. You put these two things in the same paragraph, thus you see them as related… explain…
Also, you really don’t want to bring up Nautilus’ new spatial feature while I am paying attention to these boards. Simple put, its my opinion that its the worst thing GNOME has ever done.
The dock-style taskbar wastes screen estate on lower resolution monitors.
Umm, how does a hidden widget waste space?
Apart from the Mac style application menu, you can make GNOME can look just like KDE and often times sexier with apps like gdesklet. Heck, you can do most of these stuff in non GNOME desktops like XFCE4.
Look up Keramik and SuperKeramik sometime, and tell me gDesklets look better. XFCE4 is one such desktop I said I have tried, but didn’t like. Its horrible in my opinion, and certainly no faster then KDE. GNOME beats XFCE hands down, and I think I have made it clear how much I dislike GNOME…
Yes, I currently use GNOME, I was describing how I usually configure KDE…
Perhaps these things can be done, perhaps I just can’t find them, but then wouldn’t that make KDE more intuitive?
I mean, I have looked for these things, I have tried my best to configure GNOME the way I like. I certainly spent long enough looking for a way to get rid of the damn icons. If I can’t find something that does indeed exist, maybe GNOME developers should rethink their usability? I am a user that is very comfortable searching around, going through config files, playing in gconf-editor. If I can’t find something, how is a n00b supposed to be able to?
I think you just proved a common misconception wrong. Thankyou, you strengthened my argument, much appreciated…
And maybe the clock is customizable in GNOME, but certainly not to the extent of KDE, which was my point. What wolf did to his clock, that is not possible with GNOME’s clock.
Are you trying to tell me if I create icons in GNOME they can’t be removed? I don’t know whether to believe that or that I am a ‘lemming’ GNOME user.
If I can’t find something, how is a n00b supposed to be able to?
Perhaps a n00b will right-click on the icons and select “delete” or “move to trash” and the icons will vanish. Well, again, perhaps not.
Umm, how did you come to that conclusion? I am saying that I did not find a way to get rid of the icons on the desktop. I am stating that if I can not, no n00b will be capable. I am saying GNOME, in this case, is certainly not more intuitive then KDE.
I stated you are a lemming because you basically are stating “the feature doesn’t exist because thats how its designed”. This is a stupid reasoning, but I hear it all the time, “the GNOME folks design things well so you don’t need options”. Bull, a bunch of corporate identities who take an admins point of view think options are bad. They believe options confuse people. GNOME takes the HIG too seriously in this respect, options don’t confuse people if they are layed out well. KDE might not be the best example, but not exactly confusing to most…
That will always be the sererating factor for GNOME and KDE though. The GNOME community will always state that most options are useless, while still being requested. They will always have people like Sun saying that things need to be a certain way, and GNOME will listen because all they care about is how many users they get. They know it will get them more attention, simply because it will give them more marketing…
KDE tries to be great based on genuine merits, it tries to provide a desktop for everyone. The only people that don’t like KDE are people that pay to much attention to media, or want to be seen as leet and use something like fluxbox.
Look over at KDE-Look.org, I believe they have a poll right now asking uses what they like most about KDE. The #1 option last I checked was the extensive customization possible. Gnome users, on a simular poll, would probably state simplicity. How is it simple though if I can’t even figure out how to get rid of my damn desktop icons? Something so simple, but I’ll be damned if I know how, still…
Umm, that works with the home and start here options, can’t delete the trash last I checked though…
I am not stating that none of the icons are possible to remove, I am saying its not possible to have NO icons on the desktop… please at least act like you are reading my statements…
If you just want the eye-candy, you can make GNOME look very eye-candyish. That is not affected by the removal of options in GNOME. It’s mainly in applications and configuration on behaviour.
I have looked around a bit on kde-look and such and I see many good looking desktop setups, but I also see many good looking gnome setups. And with gdesklets it should be possible to make almost anything happen.
All in all, I may look at features in kde and think, wow, that would be cool, but I always end up choosing gnome because it just ‘feels’ better. I think a point would be to make special features plugins, which if you really wanted, you could install.
If gnome and kde applications could look the same, at least widget-wise (as there is much more to the environment than just widgets), like with gtk-qt, (though I would like to see something working the other way around), and also work together seamlessly, using stuff like from fdo, the situation would be perfect. I think there is a place for both environments to serve different users.
But I do mean that kde does not look much better eye-candy wise, at least none of the desktops in this forum has showed me anything.
And just wait for next generation E, which will undoubtedly bring a new level of eye-candy to the linux desktop
a
Yes, and all I’m saying is that you are quite full of it. Try going to the nautilus configuration and you’d see an option to remove desktop icons.
With regards to your other rants, they are false as usual but I don’t have time to put up with your zealotry or political conspiracies.
You can’t move the home folder icon, nor trash icon to the trash. You are not able to remove either of these icons afaict, enlighten me if there is a way please, thankyou…
You have to use the gconf-editor under apps->nautilus->desktop to tell it not to show those icons. It’s a little hidden, but most people won’t use it anyways so it doesn’t clutter up space where it shouldn’t.
It took me about 10 seconds to find it though… (I have used the configuration editor before, yes)
Two things I miss in gnome is custom colors without editing files and selecting an icon set changes all icons. That is not having different icons on the desktop and in applications (gtk). At least a way for the icon set to override the default gtk icon set. Mostly I am very satisfied with it.
If you just want the eye-candy, you can make GNOME look very eye-candyish. That is not affected by the removal of options in GNOME. It’s mainly in applications and configuration on behaviour.
Actually, my main gripes with GNOME are things such as the file selector, and no I don’t think the new one will be much of an improvement from what I have seen of it… GNOME doesn’t hold a candle to KDE afa eye-candy is concerned if you use Karamba and Slicker as mentioned. These projects are just as much a part of KDE as dDesklets are (ie, they are not part of the projects at all…)
I have looked around a bit on kde-look and such and I see many good looking desktop setups, but I also see many good looking gnome setups. And with gdesklets it should be possible to make almost anything happen.
Its not so much the look, some widget themes look nice. Beneath it all though, its still GNOME. The panel still sucks, the filechooser etc still suck, and dispite being better then GTK1.2, GTK2.4 still isn’t that great (although getting much better, I can’t wait for some of the surprises they may have for GTK3). I am kinda being a troll here, but I am simply replying with my opinion…
All in all, I may look at features in kde and think, wow, that would be cool, but I always end up choosing gnome because it just ‘feels’ better. I think a point would be to make special features plugins, which if you really wanted, you could install.
How can you possibly say GNOME ‘feels’ better? GIMP, GAIM, AbiWord, Scribus, Inkscape, Gnumeric, Rhythmbox, Totem even… these are nice applications, but are not part of GNOME (in some cases, this is a matter of yet, most will never be though). GTK applications that don’t commit to the HIG are nice as a general rule, but this cannot be reflected back to GNOME. GNOME != GTK and visa versa, most of the things specific to GNOME are horrible.
If gnome and kde applications could look the same, at least widget-wise (as there is much more to the environment than just widgets), like with gtk-qt, (though I would like to see something working the other way around), and also work together seamlessly, using stuff like from fdo, the situation would be perfect. I think there is a place for both environments to serve different users.
On top of GTK-QT, there is also QtGTK, a hack which replaces the GNOME file-chooser etc with the equivilent KDE technology. (http://dot.kde.org/1073668213/). These two things coupled together will be a dream come true for me personally, no more need for GNOME. It would appear that GNOME developers are too elitest to realize KDE apps have their place also however, and thus haven’t even started an equivilent project to either GTK-QT or QtGTK.
You want to add or remove an icon. You can do all that via the right click button. If you don’t want any icons at all there is an option in Nautilus not to display desktop icons. Unfortunately, I’m on windows so I can’t remember the exact path.
Or you could launch gconf-editor then browse to /apps/nautilus/desktop and turn on or off desktop icons. Again, my memory is fuzzy. So I may be wrong. But to clamor that this is not possible under GNOME is silly.
Ahh, thankyou. Although, why would I have looked in the Nautilus section to find an option to turn off desktop icons?
I realize Nautilus is very much the desktop shell, in more ways then one, but surely there is a more logical location for these options?
You can customize icons in GNOME. You need to know the path to which your icons are situated though. Once you know that, you right click on the icon go to properties, then select customize icons or something similar. Afterwhich you can enter the path to which the icons are situated, and then choose the icons from the list that’s displayed.
Well since you know that Nautilus is the desktop shell, what in your opinion will be the most logical place to put desktop related configurations?
Nice layout. Can’t complain about too much bloat.
I like the panel hidden. I have it in the left side and can get to it with a sideways wrist motion. That’s easier than at the bottom and a down and up hand motion.
What I’d really like to see is a universal menu/panel that I don’t have to move the mouse to – but that will popup up right under my mouse no matter where my mouse is and otherwise take up no screen space. And if the menu item selected is an app that takes an arg (a file), then that the app accepts an already selected file as the arg. Maybe the new detached “Universal Sidebar” is a step in that direction – http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/004/software/kde-3.2/kde-3.2-05…..