GNOME Usability Issues Analyzed As Part Of GNOME OPW

[MoonMoon]

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.

But that is exactly the point. Why should I do that? Because the Gnome developers think that users should only do what they think is right?

[psychoticmeow]

But that is exactly the point. Why should I do that? Because the Gnome developers think that users should only do what they think is right?

Yes? I mean do you expect them to build your application or theirs?

[gens]

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

there is no "full-screen window" in X
all "full-screen windows" are "borderless" windows the size of the screen with origin coordinates 0,0

and yes, KDE (as well as any other compositing wm with "unredirect fullscreen window" option) does not redirect (composite) fullscreen borderless windows

PS fun fact: the border itself is a window in X

[MoonMoon]

Yes? I mean do you expect them to build your application or theirs?

I expect them to listen to their user base. If they only want to cater to themselves that is fine with me, but then they should say so. Instead, this is what the Gnome website says: "a complete free software solution for everyone."
How can it be for everyone if they ignore the outcries of their users when they remove features? When even their userbase says: Well, install a different filemanager if you want that removed feature back?
You can have your cake, or eat it, but not both.

[grndzro]

The only way this would be useful is if Gnome devs actually listened to suggestions

This isn't listening to suggestions?

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?px=GNOME-316-Features-Preview&page=news_item

Looks like some good stuff in there.

[grndzro]

I expect them to listen to their user base. If they only want to cater to themselves that is fine with me, but then they should say so. Instead, this is what the Gnome website says: "a complete free software solution for everyone."
How can it be for everyone if they ignore the outcries of their users when they remove features? When even their userbase says: Well, install a different filemanager if you want that removed feature back?
You can have your cake, or eat it, but not both.

I am assuming you stick with DE defaults the way you are railing on about how gnome isn't catering to you. Try modifying your linux installation. Gnome 3 was designed with extensions in mind.

How hard is "sudo pacman -S thunar", Or sudo apt-get install thunar, or zypper in thunar.....Complaining about features that are easily changeable is retarded. There are great extensions for just about every use scenario you could come up with in Gnome. Not using them is the same as not configuring KDE and then complaining about the interface.

[Bucic]

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

Amen!

[Bucic]

But that is exactly the point. Why should I do that? Because the Gnome developers think that users should only do what they think is right?

Further discussion is futile. Your come from an erroneous stance that there is no such thing as 'objectively more efficient UI actions' don't exist or that it's not worth it to put them before user's habits and here it ends.

[danielnez1]

Further discussion is futile. Your come from an erroneous stance that there is no such thing as 'objectively more efficient UI actions' don't exist or that it's not worth it to put them before user's habits and here it ends.

Is really a good idea to impose some programmers/designers ideas upon a user, especially when it is against the norm? Definitely not.

Likewise the reliance on GNOME extensions is shaky at best, given there is no guarantee that they will work in the next version and the API is poorly documented. Also, if a user really needs to install 3rd part code to do something as simple move the top panel to the bottom, then I'd say the system is broken.

[justmy2cents]

Is really a good idea to impose some programmers/designers ideas upon a user, especially when it is against the norm? Definitely not.

Likewise the reliance on GNOME extensions is shaky at best, given there is no guarantee that they will work in the next version and the API is poorly documented. Also, if a user really needs to install 3rd part code to do something as simple move the top panel to the bottom, then I'd say the system is broken.

in the risk of playing Captain Obvious and Devil's Advocate at the same time.

gnome/gtk was fairly obvious with initial presentations. 3.0 is development version, where 4.0 will be stable. and as much as i hate acknowledging this, they are right. you can't have stable and fast development in same sentence. one would expect that extensions will be much more reliable when that happens, sigh... curse my self

on the other side, i can't name how many times i cursed the same thing i defended in previous paragraph because of extremely long unstable turn. at least gtk should go stable asap. as far as gnome goes, no matter how much i hate my self for saying this. i want them to wait for full wayland support and sandboxing. last thing i would ever want to see is those 2 breaking stability due to not resolved issues because of rushing and those 2 are kind off, biggest thing that is bound to happen