← Back to team overview

unity-design team mailing list archive

Re: Category-based app browsing, was Re: Some impressions about the current status of Unity


On 26. feb. 2012 14:55, Adrian Maier wrote:
Yes , that's the point . With a classic apps menu it's super-easy to see the big picture : see what applications are available .

Again, this is assuming that you only have access to an extremely small number of applications. But that hardly allies to anyone anymore. So you you either have to create deep menu structures, or you would have to scroll for a long time for see.

As an overview, this is proven to be a bad idea. I think one of the first operating system to use that idea, was Windows 95. When that operating system was released, it was difficult to even connect to the internet. The web still used those kinds of menus. As the web grew larger, it became apparent that using hierarchical menus to navigate it, simply wouldn't work.

One more scenario :    "I vaguely remember that 5 months ago i've
installed 25 audio apps in order to test them .  Then I've chosen 4
for everyday use.  Let's do some cleanup" .

How do you perform that cleanup? Using the Ubuntu Software Center, of course. It provides you with a list of applications, shows you when it was installed and makes it easy to remove them. It could easily enable you to browse by install time, or by use frequency. Isn't it better to find automated solutions for this, rather than force the user to do manual labor?

With a classic apps menu the user sees the unused apps every time when
he starts an audio app.  He is aware that there are some unused
programs that waste space  .

You make that sound like a good thing. But that also means the computer wastes his time and focus every single time he wants to launch an application. Why would anyone want to browse through a list of things they _don't_ want to do every time they want to do something?

With a search approach , the user will soon forget about uninstalling
the unused apps  .

So why not just make that configurable? For instance, every time you install upgrades or new software, it can ask it you want to remove applications you haven't used in x amount of time. However, most applications today doesn't occupy disk space at all, and those that do, requires so extremely small amounts of data that the disk space isn't really worth noticing anyway. Again, I would much rather have the system tell me these things, rather than having to remember what I don't do and then manually remove those possibilities.

In your mail, I didn't see one single argument why using static directory/folder infrastructure is better than using a dynamic system that continually optimizes for the things you do most frequently. I don't understand why anyone would want to optimize for things they hardly ever do. Your email did point out some very strong reasons why the new system is far better, however.

Jo-Erlend Schinstad

Follow ups