unity-design team mailing list archive

[Phong Cao <phngcv@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gnome3 is, in almost every way, a usability regression.  It simply takes
many times more work (clicks, drags, gestures, etc. etc.) to perform almost
any given action (opening an app, closing an app, finding an app, etc. etc.)
in G3 than it does in either Unity or G2.

By way of example, window management in particular is a nightmare.  Consider
the following task: I want to, for a moment, get a window out of my way (to
see the window behind it) and then put it back.  In G2 or Unity I would:
- minimize the app (one click)
- restore the app (one click in G2, one or two clicks in Unity, depending on
the number of open windows)

In Gnome3, I can do this several ways, but the easiest involves:
- moving mouse to a hot corner, or using the keyboard shortcut to trigger
the expose-like feature
- pick the window I want to raise to the top
- go again to hot corner or use keyboard combination
- pick the original window

Well I think using the amount of "clicks" to compare which desktop is faster
or more efficient is not a good way of doing it.

Let's compare it this way:
- Open 3 maxmimized windows of Chrome, 2 maximized OpenOffice windows, 2
terminals and 1 file manager (this is what I usually do for my work).
- Now try to switch between these windows and count how LONG does it take in
GNOME Shell and Unity. This is exactly what I meant "easier"

Now after doing this you will see three things:
- Although GNOME Shell takes more clicks to work on rather than Unity, it is
easier and faster to manage windows.
+ In Unity, if using the default configuration (the left bar automatically
hidden), when in the Chrome windows, I will have to "guess" the position of
Chrome icon or Workspace icon if I want to switch to another window.
+ In GNOME Shell I just hover the mouse and choose the windows from the list
of windows. I think it is a lot easier this way.

When comparing the two desktop what I do is not trying to count "How many
clicks to do this... ?". Rather, I count "How many seconds faster and how
confusing each of them is...". And at least in default GNOME Shell I do not
have to "guess" the position of my icons.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM, GonzO Rodrigue <worlord668@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Phong Cao <phngcv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I am too have been for a long time a Ubuntu's fan. However, I am not
>> trying to be negative but... I would say that Unity's design is way far
>> behind GNOME Shell in Fedora 15.
>
>
> I think exactly the opposite.
>
> Unity is... about 80% of the way there.  There are a lot of nits and picks
> I could make to it, but for the most part, it works really well.
>
> Gnome3 is, in almost every way, a usability regression.  It simply takes
> many times more work (clicks, drags, gestures, etc. etc.) to perform almost
> any given action (opening an app, closing an app, finding an app, etc. etc.)
> in G3 than it does in either Unity or G2.
>
> By way of example, window management in particular is a nightmare.
>  Consider the following task: I want to, for a moment, get a window out of
> my way (to see the window behind it) and then put it back.  In G2 or Unity I
> would:
> - minimize the app (one click)
> - restore the app (one click in G2, one or two clicks in Unity, depending
> on the number of open windows)
>
> In Gnome3, I can do this several ways, but the easiest involves:
> - moving mouse to a hot corner, or using the keyboard shortcut to trigger
> the expose-like feature
> - pick the window I want to raise to the top
> - go again to hot corner or use keyboard combination
> - pick the original window
>
> Took two simple clicks before; takes a gesture and a click now.  Don't even
> get me started on all the different gestures and drags necessary to use all
> those workspaces, or all of the information about my computer or
> applications that I can no longer see without first going into the
> "activities" window.  Ugh.
>
> I'm glad you like it, but I can't possibly figure out how anyone can call
> it "easier," and know for a fact that with all the additional steps one has
> to take to perform the same actions, it absolutely isn't "simpler".
>
> I can't believe it was released as a finished product.  It's the _least_
> convenient desktop GUI experience I think I may have ever had, short of
> trying to configure AfterStep.
>
> One man's opinion, take it or leave it.
>
> --G
>