There is no need to do anything special to support specific instances
as long as the system is flexible enough to allow the user to adjust it
to their needs.
Personally I like flexibility, I'm just aware that such flexibility may have a cost. Hopefully there is no or limited cost and it doesn't impact on usability. But flexibility is good a good thing :)
> Firstly I never called users who switch between applications faulty, I
> stated that IMHO the majority of users do not switch on a regular basis.
> Don't put words in my mouth in trying to discredit what I have written
> please.
It's me the one who added the word "faulty" in the discussion.
I should have written "rare birds" instead of "faulty users" because what
i meant to say was : i disagree that users who switch windows frequently
are so rare. Even if they are rare like 20% , it is not ok to neglect them
completely just because of some half-baked design reasons that target only
the most simplistic workflow .
No worries, sorry if I worded my response a tad strong (which in re-reading it does appear that way). This medium for communication can be painful at times.
Totally agree. If switching is 20% of the time then it should be considered and shouldn't be neglected, my concern is that it's around 5% or lower. That aside, I find my biggest annoyance is when I minimise a window and I cannot restore it without using alt-tab or select the launcher to get the multi window choice. I'm still trying to figure out if the current side bar with zoomed multi select for an app is better than how I normally work with a task bar, currently undecided. to be honest I've found myself arranging my widows on different virtual desktops and then just using ctrl alt and arrows to go where I want. I actually find that faster than using the task bar.
> Not every one switches between applications every single minute, or every
> five minutes or even every 30 minutes. Take all of what I said, not
> extracts. If you wish to justify showing 100% of the time each instance of
> what is running and enable easy mouse clicks then you need to justify how
> the majority of users need this. The majority of users is not you, nor are
> they me.
Precisely : users are different and they have different needs.
That's why it's impossible to design a unified perfect desktop experience that
pleases everyone.
Hmm. While I agree that a unified approach is difficult because of different environments (tablet, netbook, pc, etc) I do understand that getting a unified environment has the advantage of maintainability and conformity. Though Apple using the iPhone approach on the iPad has shown that just scaling the screen up doesn't always make for the best experience IMHO, it also makes makes it easy for Apple to maintain and it's easier for people to understand who are not very computer literate or not regular users (and for that matter quite a few regular users as well).
To me it's really about who Canonical are trying to target as their key audiences. I think that maybe what is pushing the current direction. It may not be us that they're targeting.
Unity needs to become customizable (ability to rearrange stuff on the
screen, complete control over Launcher, complete control over global menu
behaviour, support for comfortable windows switching ) . And quickly , so
that the 11.11 Unity would become usable for more than internet browsing .
Agree that it should be more customisable, question is how far and at what cost. I don't really see Unity right now as purely an Internet browsing DE :) Though I understand your frustration.
> This is prone to failure. IMO the majority of people who would respond to
> such a poll may not be the group of users that Ubuntu/Canonical wish to
> target. I suspect that the results would be misleading.
users who have 11.04 and use "Ubuntu classic" instead of Unity.
Or the number of people who uninstalled the unity (this info should be
already accessible through the package statistics).
Actually this is a really good idea. People hate data being collected, but I would have no problem at all having feedback about my UI interaction (depending on what level and as long as this is very transparent) going back to Canonical so that they can get some real numbers on who is using what environment, what the common activities are in both, etc etc etc.
Only problem I foresee is people tend to opt out of such things (I know I have a habit of doing that, though in this case I would resist the urge to opt-out).
However I reckon this is a brillant idea, it would actually allow collection and collation of valuable data to help decide which areas need focusing. Maybe people could opt in for a set period and it automatically turns itself off, or maybe lets the user know that data is available to be sent and lets you review what is actually being sent first, etc. Though would wish to avoid any nag screens.
> You say
> you often open applications that are not in the quick launcher. How often is
> this? Have you kept a log over a period of a week or longer to determine how
> often you need to open an application that is not in the quick launcher?
It is very often. While writing this answer I have switched to
other applications
at least 40 times (checked email in thunderbird , used the
messenger, executed
some tests , then came back to composing email ,etc ).
I have no logged data, but I am aware of my habits. I keep a minimal number
of applications in the quicklaunch .
In the quick launcher i have : rxvt , firefox , google chrome.
Other applications that i use but i start them from menu are : thunderbird ,
netbeans, gnome commander, xchat , k3b, qmmp, virtualbox.
Sometimes I also start applications from the terminal : usually gvim and vnc .
Yes, a difficult case. I've ended up with approx. 18 apps on the launcher, however I regularly use about 5 and slightly less frequently use about another 6. The rest I could get rid of, I just don't wish to use the search when I do use them. I should note I have a very large screen at high res, so I can get away with this and I would consider myself to be a special case. If I was limited to just six I could live, but I suspect it would annoy me at times.
>> configurability.
>>
>
> Which I'm sure they will (and I'm sure your aware).
But they did release the 11.04 with auto-hiding global menus without
making it possible to disable this feature from System Configuration.
I don't think it's complicated to add such an option for someone who
knows the source code.
This is a warning sign ; it might indicate that the lack of such config
options is an intentional design-driven decision.
I hope to be wrong , though .
I suspect that the lack of a config is exactly this, an intentional design-driven decision. I do find it frustrating the lack of information available about what direction they're taking. I understand why they do this, but it still frustrates me.
Personally I would be happy with a range of config options, maybe not as far as some would like, there is still the cost of providing such flexibility, and I suspect this is one of the reasons they're trying to restrict. Of course I could be totally wrong and they do wish to allow full customisation to the nth degree, however I have a suspicion that this is not the case.
> If they don't then there
> are other distributions that you can migrate to that serves your
> requirements, if you feel that the path that Ubuntu is headed is not in your
> best interest.
Fortunately it's even easier to keep using Ubuntu but switch to another desktop
environment .
Yes, true unfortunately.
Despite being disappointed by Unity, I still like the Ubuntu
distribution (simply
because it's a Debian system with a faster release cycle). I wouldn't
waste time
ranting on the ayatana list otherwise.
--
Adrian M