unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 23. feb. 2012 12:27, Adrian Maier wrote:
> 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 ...

Ubuntu switched to Gnome 3 partially in 11.04, more completely in 11.10, 
and further in Precise.
A couple of screenshots of Gnome 3 in 11.10:

Adding an applet: http://ubuntuone.com/0FQKR9MBQp5lMTgtg3jRg5
Using menus: http://ubuntuone.com/1LjAMTsvApITscaUGxWNp1

From all your posts, that seems to be exactly what you want. I wrote 
before that this is not called Gnome 2. It is called Gnome Panel, which 
is available in Gnome 1, 2 and 3. If this is indeed your vision of the 
future, then that's fine. Use it, contribute to it and be happy. It's 
not the vision of Unity. The very easiest way you can contribute you it, 
is to stop referring to it as "Gnome 2", because that implies that 
there's something Gnome 2 specific about it, which is not true.

If indeed you're using Precise, then just install the package called 
gnome-panel: http://apt.ubuntu.com/p/gnome-panel. Then, the next time 
you login, choose the classic session. You will then have a desktop that 
is pretty much identical to the desktop in 10.04. And though I haven't 
tried, I'm pretty sure you should be able to add the Unity 2D launcher 
and dash to it if you wanted to.

> 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

Then "web" should never return the default web browser and "mail" should 
not return your email client, etc? That wouldn't make any kind of sense 
if the goal is to make sure that searches is only useful if you have the 
precise name. I don't understand why that should ever be a goal. You 
know, there was a time when the web didn't use search engines, but 
hierarchical menus. The claim that searches require you to use exact 
phrases, obviously isn't true. Otherwise, searches would never have 
replaced directories on the web.

> - 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 ?

If the icons are made smaller, then there's no space to have text. I've 
used Gnome since 1999 and Ubuntu since November 2005. Is it my 
experience you're worried about? Please don't. To me, Unity is the 
easiest and most efficient desktop I've ever used.

> 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

You mean such as unselecting the online scope in the applications lens?

> -  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

Then you have two choices; accept that your dash will be extremely slow, 
or make sure you cannot find all your stuff. Which do you prefer? I 
prefer the third choice; limit the number of entries displayed by 
default and enable me to find anything.

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

Then just disable that. It isn't exactly difficult if you're looking for 
solutions instead of looking for things to complain about.
> > 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.

Yes. That is a big problem with the old menus that's been known for 
decades. It is difficult to use for new users since it requires advanced 
mouse skills. People with reduced fine muscle movement, such as patients 
with Parkinsons decease will have terrible problems since a small 
movement will move you into a different category. It is difficult to use 
if you have reduced vision. Etc.

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

Yes, in the age of web apps, for instance, this is a perfect solution. 
Imagine having a thousand entries in the Internet category.

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

That is not necessarily true. It is only a single column, which means 
you use a much smaller part of your screen. With Unity, on the other 
hand, you use the entire screen.

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

No, using a single column instead of a grid means more scrolling.

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

You did. You need to scroll instead. And loading a thousand icons still 
takes time using a "classic menu".
> > > 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 .

Again; it is not called gnome2. It is called Gnome Panel. It has always 
been available, has never been removed and if you prefer it, you should 
use it. This is not the idea of Unity. If you prefer to use Gnome Panel, 
then just use it. It will never make sense to try and push the old work 
flow onto a different product. You should either adapt to the Unity 
workflow, or keep using Gnome Panel or some other "classic" environment.
> > > 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.

It is extremely rude to twist other peoples words like that. I've never 
ever expressed any kind of misgivings about the classic menu. Quite the 
contrary. I've spent large amounts of time working advocating for 
keeping it. That's not the same as using it as a default in Unity.

This was from a private email you sent me where you claimed that 
right-clicking on the desktop should display the menus you want. My 
response was that if all users should have menus for everything they 
wanted in the desktop by default, it would mean an extremely large menu, 
which would make it extremely difficult to use. This was an effort to 
explain why simply "_adding_ a feature" is not without consequences.


> > 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.

The difference is that I know that you can easily add it if you want it. 
You would also know this if you had asked for it, instead of being angry 
that you can't.

Here's an example for you: http://ubuntuone.com/0X1JuF6HRTwEb5U1JyIk1D

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 ...

I told you before, Ubuntu uses Gnome 3 by default. If you've tried 
Unity, you have also tried Gnome 3. And if Canonical makes a product, 
that means you cannot use other products? I don't understand that. It's 
not as if Unity has removed the old application menu or anything like that.
> 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  .

Of course it does. Why do you make such claims? If you don't know 
something, then ask. And you keep referring to it as Gnome 2, which is 
complete nonsense since Gnome 3 is identical in this regard. The name is 
Gnome Panel. Not Gnome 2. It is completely usable with Unity. It always 
has been. I would recommend that you spend some time on 
http://AskUbuntu.com. Fewer claims, more questions.


--
Jo-Erlend Schinstad