unity-design team mailing list archive

[Adrian Maier <syraxes@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 17:08, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
<joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Says who ?

> 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.

The web has nothing to do with the applications installed on a computer.


>> 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.

I personally wouldn't request such features . Seems overkill .

> 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.

And you haven't provided any single argument why a static apps menu is evil  .
And you haven't provided any single argument why a static apps menu
could not co-exist with  Unity's  launcher, dash and lenses .

Feel free to like it or not ,  but there are people who miss the
functionality and "the feel"    of the classic apps menu .   There are
even guys who implemented an indicator for bringing it into Unity .


In fact  : you have even pointed at the possibility to start the gnome
panel inside Unity .   This implies that you actually can accept the
idea that some users (for whatever reasons!)  may want to have a
classic apps menu in _addition_ to  what does Unity offer .    It's
difficult to understand your attitude now .


> 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 ,   you have repeatedly compared the classic apps menu  against
some future Unity that would _supposedly_  contain  some improvements
that are not currently implemented.

On the other hand I am judging only the _current_   Unity
implementation .   And right now I find that it is irritating to
browse the applications .

As I said ,   that I am taking into account the current look and
behaviour .   This does not include those obscure dconf setttings ,
and more importantly  does _not_  include any improvement idea that is
not available  _today_ .



You have your own string opinion that the navigation provided by a
classic apps menu is not useful  .  You like to argue and you are
rejecting any kind argument.

There is no point in discussing with you anymore .  Please feel free
to have the final word .



-- 
Adrian