unity-design team mailing list archive

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

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