GNOME Usability Issues Analyzed As Part Of GNOME OPW

[danielnez1]

IIn general however I think they are moving in a good direction, mainly because they have ditched the traditional menu in favour of something that allows them to provide a similar UX to what you would have seen in the cluttered toolbars of the past (ie. the place where all the functionality was removed from).

Cluttered toolbars are an issue, however I'd argue that removing menus is a retrograde step, it essentially hides functionality from the end user and doesn't allow for summarising the functionality the application provides at a glance. I'm also not keen on the removal of customisation options, such as custom toolbars.

[psychoticmeow]

Cluttered toolbars are an issue, however I'd argue that removing menus is a retrograde step, it essentially hides functionality from the end user and doesn't allow for summarising the functionality the application provides at a glance. I'm also not keen on the removal of customisation options, such as custom toolbars.

I'm quite happy about all of these things. I really don't need a visual representation of much of an applications functionality to be on screen at all times to find it usable. I almost agree about customisation, except that I'd prefer to see all of the core applications become extensible in a similar way to the shell itself.

One thing that does piss me off somewhat is the lack of visible keyboard shortcuts in these new popup menus. Although there should be a page dedicated to the shortcuts an application has in its help, it's a little less intuitive than necessary.

[danielnez1]

I'm quite happy about all of these things. I really don't need a visual representation of much of an applications functionality to be on screen at all times to find it usable. I almost agree about customisation, except that I'd prefer to see all of the core applications become extensible in a similar way to the shell itself.

To me the Shell's extension mechanism seems to be more of a hack and a token gesture. I'd much rather see the classic panel based approach to customisation instead of having to write JavaScript extensions.

[MoonMoon]

here's why your statement is a complete failure... (note, that i don't agree with single conclusion made here)
- most users come from windows, so windows is defacto how desktop must work. any DE requiring to adapt is failure according to you
- most users come from windows, windows don't have virtual desktops and any DE trying to use the power of those is automatically failure. next question since most users come from windows,...
- which windows does it correctly? even windows versions behave completely different. if you have user coming from XP, he is used to different workflow than user coming from 8
- not all software is on Linux... user would need to adapt. Linux is a failure since software user is used to is not there

Reading these statements makes me believe that you simply didn't understand what I am saying. Maybe I made it not clear enough: Any DE that forces a workflow different from the users "native" workflow on the user is a fail in itself. That of course also includes the Windows and OS X DEs (which are a prime example for forcing the user to adapt, IMHO). It doesn't matter at all how the "native" workflow of the user looks like, even if it is a workflow based on habits from other operating systems and even if the native workflow seems to be dumb. Think about it, which is preferable, a single user adapting his/her DE to a dumb workflow, or a probably dumb workflow forced on every user of a DE?
Example: Many users have a workflow that requires them to have a file-manager with dual pane view. Despite complaints about that the Gnome developers removed split pane view from Nautilus/Gnome Files, forcing their vision of the correct workflow onto their users. The question is: What is more dumb, removing this option, or keeping it even when not all users actually use it?

Don't get me wrong, of course there are users that like the workflow that Gnome Shell offers to them, but for those that don't like it it comes down to "eat it or die". The same is true for Unity, by the way, so this is not a Gnome-only thing. This is were all the WMs, and DEs like KDE, show their real potential: maximum configurability to adapt the DE to your needs.

[Bucic]

And that is the point where Gnome developers (and others) are mistaken. If a user needs to adapt their workflow to the DE it is automatically a fail. The DE should always adapt to the user, not the other way around.

Don't you realise this is exactly what many value in Gnome Shell? That it doesn't cater to UI stuck-ups. There are plenty other DEs which do and you're free to install them. The damage UI stuck-ups inflicted (indirectly) to LibreOffice is enough...

[MoonMoon]

Don't you realise this is exactly what many value in Gnome Shell?

I realize that and as I said there are of course people that like Gnome Shell and its type of workflow. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make a statement like ?they just don't like it because they are not used to it" in general true, many people don't like it because it doesn't allow them to work as they want to work, sometimes for no good reason. Or is there a reasonable explanation for removing split pane view from Nautilus despite user complaints?

[Bucic]

I realize that and as I said there are of course people that like Gnome Shell and its type of workflow. There is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make a statement like ?they just don't like it because they are not used to it" in general true, many people don't like it because it doesn't allow them to work as they want to work, sometimes for no good reason. Or is there a reasonable explanation for removing split pane view from Nautilus despite user complaints?

It's conformant to the 'tabs should die' rule. Instead of using the split mode you should quickly snap two windows to the sides of the desktop.

[justmy2cents]

Reading these statements makes me believe that you simply didn't understand what I am saying. Maybe I made it not clear enough: Any DE that forces a workflow different from the users "native" workflow on the user is a fail in itself. That of course also includes the Windows and OS X DEs (which are a prime example for forcing the user to adapt, IMHO). It doesn't matter at all how the "native" workflow of the user looks like, even if it is a workflow based on habits from other operating systems and even if the native workflow seems to be dumb. Think about it, which is preferable, a single user adapting his/her DE to a dumb workflow, or a probably dumb workflow forced on every user of a DE?
Example: Many users have a workflow that requires them to have a file-manager with dual pane view. Despite complaints about that the Gnome developers removed split pane view from Nautilus/Gnome Files, forcing their vision of the correct workflow onto their users. The question is: What is more dumb, removing this option, or keeping it even when not all users actually use it?

Don't get me wrong, of course there are users that like the workflow that Gnome Shell offers to them, but for those that don't like it it comes down to "eat it or die". The same is true for Unity, by the way, so this is not a Gnome-only thing. This is were all the WMs, and DEs like KDE, show their real potential: maximum configurability to adapt the DE to your needs.

user that needs dual panel file manager is definitely capable of installing it. personally i fail to see any usability since when i need dual panel i use mc or open 2 nautilus windows and use side pinning (which is also the reason for that removal and good ridance, side pinning is much better way). this way i can have multiple tabs per each side and easily distinguishable and makes simpler file manager at the same time and even if they remove tabs, i probably won't see any difference

maximum configurability is useless if i need to go to sleep 2 times before i finally configure it due to option exaggeration. main reason i like gnome is that it comes with sane defaults, KDE fails that completely. many people prefer "just works" and "no hustle". personally, i don't call configurability full potential, i call that bother where developers couldn't get shit together and make sane defaults

also, how is that "eat or die"? does anyone prevents you from installing other file manager and as it seems you like KDE for configuration options, so you surely don't mind this? it is just about most sane defaults

[justmy2cents]

Kwin 4 has option to force disable composition for fullscreen windows.

some games do the stupid thing and create borderless window with full size of screen. that has nothing to do with that.

[MoonMoon]

maximum configurability is useless if i need to go to sleep 2 times before i finally configure it due to option exaggeration. main reason i like gnome is that it comes with sane defaults, KDE fails that completely. many people prefer "just works" and "no hustle". personally, i don't call configurability full potential, i call that bother where developers couldn't get shit together and make sane defaults

You say that as it would be mutually exclusive to have sane defaults and configurability. Hint: it is not.
Also, how is forcing the user to install third party software to get a feature that was previously present not a fail of the DE developers?

By the way, I am not using KDE myself, I prefer tiling WMs. That doesn't mean that there are users that want this functionality in Gnome out of the box.