unity-design team mailing list archive

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

On 26. feb. 2012 18:12, Adrian Maier wrote:
> 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 ?

If it was a good way to navigate through large amounts of data, it would 
still be used as the preferred way to navigate the web.
> The web has nothing to do with the applications installed on a computer.

Why is that? To me, an application is an application. Whether it's 
installed as a system application in the normal /usr/bin directories, if 
it's in the users private ~/bin directory, if it's in /opt, on an 
intranet or on the web... Why does that matter? If you use a program, 
that program should be in your menus. Of course it should. Why would you 
like to have two completely different environments based on how the 
application works? That makes no sense to me. An app is an app, from a 
users point of view.

> > 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 .

Overkill? The data is already there. Adding those features would be very 
simple.
> 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 .

Evil? That's just weird. I haven't argued that static applications menus 
can co-exist? I gave you precise instructions on how to add such a menu. 
But that's not the design of the dash. The entire desktop is becoming 
semantic. Adding static menus isn't necessary. And it isn't useful once 
you consider the enormous amounts of web applications people use. You 
seem to be of the opinion that a menu should only display installed 
applications. I disagree. I see absolutely no value in making web-apps 
second-class citizens just because they operate over HTTP instead of X.

> 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 .
Yes, people like many different things. Not all of them can be 
implemented in a single products default experience.

> 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 you're being so defensive. This is a design list. 
It is specifically about Unity design. I've been a strong proponent of 
keeping Gnome Panel alive. I often use LXDE and Xfce as well. They're 
different things. But having a lot of completely different user 
experiences in use at the same time, makes the system utterly confusing. 
There should be no static menus in Unity by default. Most people do not 
separate between binary, locally installed applications and 
browser-apps. Unity shouldn't either. That's when static menus in 
general becomes less useful, and when hierarchical menus become 
unreasonable for the number of applications.

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

Of course I do. That's what we do here. We are _designing_ things that 
doesn't exist. Otherwise, it would already have been designed.

> 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 .

Why? I mean, what's your goal? The current version of Unity is finished. 
This mailinglists purpose is figuring out how it's going to be in the 
future.

> 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_ .

In that case, there are other places more suitable for discussion.

> 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.

That is simply not true. But you're not bringing any new ideas. And 
that's what this list is for. Simply claiming that static, hierarchical 
menus are better than search engines, won't change my opinion if I 
didn't agree with it the last time you said so.


--
Jo-Erlend Schinstad