unity-design team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Some impressions about the current status of Unity
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 00:55, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
> 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,
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> the dash.
>> I still claim that in order to see what's available a classical menu is
>> 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
>> suggestion that is about "backporting" features from other desktop
>> It can't be hard to implement a classic app menu when right-clicking on
> No, it isn't difficult.
>> But there is a strong repelling attitude against such features. However
>> 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
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
>> bottom left corner I can place it there . If I don't use the Trash, I
>> remove it completely. The size of the panels is configurable. And so
> 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
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
>>> 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.