unity-design team mailing list archive

[Phong Cao <phngcv@xxxxxxxxx>]

> You forgot that launcher icons never move, they are predictable, a lot
> more so than the dynamic scale view.

They are only predictable if they were already "pinned" to the left bar. I
use Chrome & Libre & Terminal a lot so I always pin them to the left bar.
But how about the occasional users who do not pin these programs to their
left bar?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ed Lin <edlin280@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Phong Cao <phngcv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > About Unity & Gnome Shell... none of them is better than the other. It
> > depends on the users.
> > I am the kind of user that never open less than 5 windows at a time.
> >
> > As I explained above:
> > 1. Try to open 3 maximized windows of Chrome, 3 maximized windows of
> > LibreOffice, 2 Terminal windows and 1 Nautilus window.
> > 2. Now switch between the windows of different applications. You can
> easily
> > see that:
> > - In Gnome Shell: I hover the mouse to the top-left, which takes almost 1
> > second. Then all 9 windows are shown on the screen for me to choose from.
> > This makes things simple and easier.
> > - In Unity:
> > + The best way to switch between applications in Unity is using the
> > keyboard.
> > + Other than that, I will have to hover the mouse to the left and then
> > "guess" "Where is my Chrome/Terminal/LibreOffice icon?" to click on.
> > + This causes lots of confusion and time consuming since everytime I want
> to
> > switch between DIFFERENT applications I have to "guess" the icon position
> > again.
> > + This should not be a problem if you keep the left panel always visible.
> > However, Gnome Shell does not sacrifice any horizontal screen space and
> > still achieve the result I need.
> > Lastly, please do not use the age of Unity as an excuse. I am tired of
> > people saying that "Because Unity is just ... months old and Gnome Shell
> has
> > been.... decades old so Gnome Shell is better".
> > Gnome Shell will always be older than Unity and Unity will always use
> this
> > statement as an excuse for its weaknesses. Unity will hardly improve if
> its
> > developers use age to say it is better or worse than Shell.
> > Weaknesses do not come from age. They come from the design philosophy of
> the
> > developers.
> > If the philosophy is wrong from the start and left unchanged, Unity will
> > hardly gets any better regardless of its age.
> >
>
> You sadly didn't reply to any of my points.
> The "expose view" in GNOME 3 can be done in Unity too: add a launcher
> icon for the scale view (=super+w) and you could do it with two clicks
> of the mouse (the keyboard will be faster of course in every case,
> exactly as fast as G3). A hot corner is a tiny bit faster but what if
> you have only one window of an application open and the launcher could
> be set to never hide?
> One click, one single straight movement of the mouse to the screen
> edge - Unity "wins".
>
> You forgot that launcher icons never move, they are predictable, a lot
> more so than the dynamic scale view.
>
> I'm going to represent my ideas for Unity 2.0/Oneiric which among
> other things could significantly improve on the window switching in
> your particular user case.
>
> > (I am just trying to explain my thought... no offense). I am sorry if any
> of
> > you guys feel hurt but i just say the truths...
> >
> Oh, if everything was that easy... ;)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>