unity-design team mailing list archive

[Adrian Maier <syraxes@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 00:55, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
<joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 22. feb. 2012 23:13, Adrian Maier wrote:
>>
>> The classic gnome2 menu is so efficient that I don't feel the need to
>> create shortcuts for applications ... That's why i find it extremely
>> productive .
>
> There is nothing "Gnome 2" about the classic desktop. It's exactly the same
> in Gnome Panel 3.

I am mentioning  Gnome2  because I haven't seen Gnome3 yet .
Ubuntu is still my preferred distribution ,   and Gnome3 is not
available in the
versions that i currently use ...


>>> If I need to launch an application that is not among my 30 most used
>>> applications, then I search. But even if I wanted to navigate by mouse,
>>> that
>>> wouldn't require more than 20-30 seconds and since this is necessarily
>>> something I don't do often, I don't see it as a problem.
>>
>> In order to search , you need to know the name of the application.
>> Ergo , the search feature is not for the complete newbie.
>
> You'll need to know the name of the application when you use directories as
> well. If you don't know that Tomboy is a notes application, then you won't
> know that it's a notes application when you see it in the directory either.


In fact i think that the problem is that the current implementation
doesn't offer some kind of middle ground :

- search is good when you know exactly the name of an application

- the current Dash  is good for the complete newbie who has lots of
time to look around .  Needs to be shown pretty big icons.   Needs to
be informed that there are tons of additional apps .

But what about the users who are already familiar with Linux and Ubuntu ?



I might become happy with the Dash if  I  were given the chance to
customize it a bit :
-  select a small icons size
-  disable the Apps available for Download
-  select a preference that i want to always see all results    (
disable "see more N results " )  .
-  specify how many "recently used"  items i'd like to see


I really don't need to have half of the screen occupied with
applications suggested to be installed.  I know how to install
software .




>>> I test everything. I've been trying out both Xfce, LXDE and Gnome Panel.
>>> Those menus are far less productive if you already know what software you
>>> have installed. You still need to do manual search of the menus, and no
>>> matter how hard I try, I can never match the speed of access that I get
>>> with
>>> the dash.
>>
>> I still claim that in order to see what's available a classical menu is
>> the
>> most efficient way for scanning the application categories and see
>> what's installed  ...
>
> Why? You have to explain these things. Simply stating that a single column
> is more efficient than a grid, makes no sense.


1.  Moving from one category to another is possible by hovering the
mouse .   I consider this more comfortable and easy.

2.  All the applications are visible immediately in a category.    You
don't need to click on "see more results" .

3.  Smaller icons means that more items fit on the screen .

4.  A compact view  means less scrolling and less click on "see more
results" . This is a good thing.

5.  Did i mention that with a classic menu there is no need to click a
 "see more results"  ?



>> Also, I still claim that any application can be started with exactly 2 clicks.
>> This is very handy if you know the category.
>
> The number of clicks isn't as important as the time it takes to figure out
> where to click.

Exactly :   in gnome2 / xfce    i can see quickly see the categories
and the applications inside the category .
It's a compact view that can be navigated based on mouse hover .

In unity i have to :
-  click on filters,
-  click on a category  ,
-  ignore the "applications available for download"
-  click on  "see more N results"
-  scroll up and down in case there are too many applications   (huge
icons imply that less items have space on the screen . This implies
more scrolling) .



> With Unity, the 10-15 most frequently used applications are
> launched with one click. The 20-50 second-most used applications can be
> launched with 2 or 3 clicks. After that, you'll need to start browsing for
> them or search. But that obviously doesn't happen often. It's better to
> optimize the things you do all the time, than to optimize the things you
> hardly ever do.
>
>>
>> The idea is that i'd like to like Unity .   It's missing just a nice  (backwards compatible) way to browse for applications.
>
> No, it doesn't. As you pointed out yourself, you can easily browse by
> category. It just isn't the main workflow.

No,  i never said that i find it easy to browse  .    Please don't put
your own opinion into someone else's mouth .

Too many clicks .     And it's irritating to be forced to click on
"see more N results"   when there is plenty of screen space .



>> My disappointment is because there seems to be a very active resistance to
>> any
>> suggestion that is about "backporting"  features from other desktop
>> environments.
>>
>> It can't be hard to implement a classic app menu when right-clicking on
>> the
>> desktop.
>
> No, it isn't difficult.
>
>> But there is a strong repelling attitude against such features. However
>> this
>> resistance doesn't make enough sense : I am not suggesting to remove
>> the existing "solution".   It's about _adding_  a feature .
>
> Yes, and you are not the only user. You speak as if adding features have no
> consequences.

Why does bother you so much the existence of a classical apps menu ?
I am not suggesting it be forced upon everyone  .  I am NOT suggesting
that the Dash
should be removed.


> If we add all features that any user on the internet wants,
> then you'll have a desktop menu with thousands of entries. You're the very
> first person I've seen to ask for this.

I don't know how many users would like to have a classic apps menu in
addition to the Dash .

And you don't know it either.



But : you have already mentioned that there is the classical desktop
for those who don't want to use unity.

Do you _really_ believe that it's a waste of time to try analyzing
what do different people dislike ?
Do you _really_ believe that it's a waste of time to discuss about
improvement ideas that would make a non-follower to become a follower
?



>> Speaking of other desktops.  You say that you've tried many desktops .
>> In this case you are surely aware that gnome2 and Xfce are far more
>> customizable :  it's possible to create panels on every edge of the screen
>> ,
>> and it's possible to put anything on each of them.  If I want a clock in
>> the
>> bottom left corner I can place it there .  If I don't use the Trash,  I
>> can
>> remove it completely.   The size of the panels is configurable.  And so
>> on.
>
> This has nothing at all to do with Gnome 2. It has to do with Gnome Panel,
> which is just as available in Gnome 3 as it is in Gnome 2. If it's
> identical, then how can it be less customizable?

I can't comment about Gnome3  because i didn't try yet  due to
Canonical's decision to develop from scratch its own desktop
experience ...


By "panels"   i am referring to those areas that can be placed on the
screen edges and  where I can add launchers,  window list ,
notifications, clock,  drawers, and tons of other stuff.     Gnome2
and Xfce4  support such panels.    Unity doesn't  .


>>>> My main showstopper  :  no classic applications menu.
>
> If you want the classic desktop, then use it. Unity is not designed to be
> that. Of course, you can add as many panels as you like to Unity, including
> the menubar you wish for. It's not default, and it won't be.


I'm advocating a classic "Applications Menu"   , not a classic "Desktop".
If i criticize a missing feature  it doesn't mean that I reject the
whole thing  .

Believe me that it's very easy for me to turn around and use something else.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of this mailing list  and
this is the place where the current design/implementation has to be
praised by everyone without questioning  ?



>>> I'm just trying to explain that there is a valid use case for having
>>> an application
>>> browser that is similar to what all of the previous generation desktop
>>> environments
>>> have .
>
> We do. The classic desktop is still there in 12.04. There's nothing wrong
> about wanting to use that instead of Unity.

But Unity is very close to being usable   for me.

Why go away  instead of coming here to discuss about it ?



>> By the way : where is the configuration option that i could enable in
>> order to have the filters visible by default ? (he, he - just joking ;)
>
> It shouldn't be "configurable" at all. It should simply be remembered. They
> should be displayed by default, and if you hide them, then they should be
> hidden until you display them, and then be displayed until you hide them.

True :    remembering the visibility of the filters would be good.




-- 
Adrian M