GNOME Shell's Layout Being Improved For Smaller Displays

[V1tol]

I have 3:2 display on a tablet and GNOME layout always was broken - with micro icons and three letter labels. Surprisingly I tried KDE 6 and it worked even better on touchscreen than I expected.

[krzyzowiec]

Sigh, and they still aren't doing anything about the fact that the workspace thumbnails are something like 50x20px boxes.

As much as I like GNOME, the horizontal layout change of GNOME ≥ 40 has been nothing but a disappointment.

I much preferred the vertical layout myself. It seems more logical, particularly when I am using the scroll wheel or trackpad to change desktops. As you said, the boxes were much larger previously because you have a lot more room when you reserve a vertical strip on the side to present them.

[clippy]

Well okay, progress.
But a overall question: most people use FullHD or even 4K and GNOME wants to be a desktop operating system (I guess). Why is so much time spent optimizing small displays and even smartphones when the normal size desktop doesn't really feel right, especially on large displays? Unfortunately, the overly simple operating concept gets in the way of normal (mouse) users. You have to click and scroll like crazy.

That is probably true among tech enthusiasts in the developed world. However, the MR actually has statistics about that, claiming that 60%-70% of the most popular desktop resolutions globally are 1080p or lower. In Africa, South America and India, the most popular resolution is apparently 1366x768.

[You-]

Sigh, and they still aren't doing anything about the fact that the workspace thumbnails are something like 50x20px boxes.

For those of us who dont remember historic pixe; sizes and also have large enough screens for what is default now to not cause any concerns:

1. What did the size used to be?
2. In your view what should it be?

(any screenshots to show what you mean will be helpful but i think thats too much of an ask for a discussion forum vs an issue.)

[Shadywack]

And you know this because you are working on the GNOME project?

If not, please stop spreading FUD.

There is no fear, uncertainty, or doubt about Gnome. Everyone simply knows the project is garbage. That's certainty, free of doubt, and we fearlessly are thankful for KDE, Sway, Budgie, Cinnamon, and Cosmic....examples of good projects that make the most of the unfortunate situation many developers and users are in as far as GTK goes.

No need to be salty either, just accept it and the opinion shared by many people.

[mxan]

For those of us who dont remember historic pixe; sizes and also have large enough screens for what is default now to not cause any concerns:

1. What did the size used to be?
2. In your view what should it be?

(any screenshots to show what you mean will be helpful but i think thats too much of an ask for a discussion forum vs an issue.)

In GNOME 3.x and earlier, the workspaces were in a vertical stack on the right-hand side of the screen. You could click and drag the window thumbnails to easily move them to other workspaces. You can still do that in GNOME 40+ except the workspaces and window thumbnails are now 1) hidden until you drag a window to the right onto the second workspace and 2) tiny, therefore quite difficult to use.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GNOME-Shell-3.10.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GNOME_Shell_40_(activities_overview).png

[krzyzowiec]

For those of us who dont remember historic pixe; sizes and also have large enough screens for what is default now to not cause any concerns:

1. What did the size used to be?
2. In your view what should it be?

(any screenshots to show what you mean will be helpful but i think thats too much of an ask for a discussion forum vs an issue.)

This is what it used to look like.

This is what it looks like now.

Notice that in the original image, the dock was on the left hand side, while the virtual desktops were on the right. This meant that desktops were easy to scale because you could scroll infinitely downwards. The boxes could be larger, which meant you could grab individual windows and move them between desktops with your mouse. You can still do that now, but it's more difficult to see them due to how small they are. I'm not sure what the rationale for changing the orientation was, but I thought the older style made Gnome 3 look more unique, and was more intuitive. The new one is fine, reminiscent of OSX if I'm honest, but makes the virtual desktops much less prominent. (maybe that was intentional)

[EphemeralEft]

The new one is fine, reminiscent of OSX if I'm honest, but makes the virtual desktops much less prominent. (maybe that was intentional)

It's identical to macOS. Yes I have a MacBook, don't @ me.

Gnome_Ripoff.jpg

[tildearrow]

How about reducing padding? That's how you optimize for small displays (but not touchscreens).

[DMJC]

That is probably true among tech enthusiasts in the developed world. However, the MR actually has statistics about that, claiming that 60%-70% of the most popular desktop resolutions globally are 1080p or lower. In Africa, South America and India, the most popular resolution is apparently 1366x768.

This is due to cost, there's been a very poor move towards using TV aspect ratios on computer screens. Which is awful for productivity/programming. Fortunately it's starting to die out with the reintroduction of 16:10 computer aspect ratios.