On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 21:50, Ed Lin <edlin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Ed Lin <edlin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In Unity applications and windows largely behave more like OS X while >> the "classic" desktop is more like Windows. >> There is a dock which represents applications as opposed to windows. >> It focuses windows of a running application instead of launching a new >> window and there is a single menubar per application, not per window. >> This is what I call the application-centric interface. >> I wonder why it was chosen as the preferred interface design because I >> can only come up with reasons why the "old" window-centric model works >> better: >> >> Multiple Desktops: >> The window-centric interface is a simpler mental model for the user as >> it is more predictable. No matter what applications are running on >> other workspaces or monitors a taskbar based interface will always >> behave the same way. It's less noisy and disruptive because you never >> get automatically switched to another workspace just because >> coincidentally another instance of an application is already running >> there. This particularly applies to such applications as file >> managers, terminals and text editors that are opened frequently and >> are used in different "work-flow contexts" say your "admin", "coding" >> or "personal" workspace. >> >> Window Management: >> The taskbar requires one click to switch to any window in the current >> desktop, in Unity switching to another window usually requires at >> least two clicks. >> >> Opening a new terminal/file manager window >> Again, takes more clicks if launcher icon and active application icon >> are the same. Keyboard shortcuts alleviate this for me but many people >> never use those. >> >> Menubar: >> The menubar "outside" of windows is probably the most visible aspect >> of the application-centric design. The main problem here is that 3rd >> party Linux applications are all written for the "classic" model. It's >> not just LibreOffice and similar cases though. GIMP and Firefox >> already have integration in Unity yet it's not perfect: If the toolbox >> or download window is focused the menubar is empty and keyboard >> shortcuts don't work. This is nothing that can't be solved as native >> OS X applications show but my question here, is it worth it? Apart >> from the netbook user case with maximized windows I can't see any >> advantage of the global menubar. (If it was speed of access you >> wouldn't have made hover only.) >> >> My question to you: What are the reasons behind moving Ubuntu from a >> window-centric to an application-centric interface? What are the >> advantages and are they worth the trade-offs? >> >> I want to like Unity, there is much to like about it, the launcher >> keyboard shortcuts, the compiz integration, the dash, lenses and more >> but please help me understand why app-centric should be better for me. >> > > Some update on this... I took the liberty to bump this as it is > probably more suited for the discussion going on in another thread. > >From [Ayatana] Idea for improving visibility of running applications: > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>I disagree with a window-centric model by >> default. Although I have no studies to quote here, it seems to be >> gospel among interface designers (ie Apple, Canonical Design Team) >> that an application-centric model is better for most. I'm fine with >> that, and anecdotal evidence supports it fairly strongly. So an >> app-centric model by default. > > I'd love to hear more on this. Gospels without evidence obviously > isn't good enough ;) > > Let's take a step back: > I'd argue the perfect interface reduces itself to only content and the > user, the technical details should be abstracted away. The goal of a > computer isn't to run applications as it's been pointed out so often. > The point always was to enable the user to do "things". User-centric > is and always has been the only valid answer. From this point of view > partitioning what a user can do into different separated applications > isn't an end-goal. It's a limitation of current software and design. > Strictly adhering to an app-centric model is preventing progress > (let's not forget the app-centric model of Mac OS interface is 3 > decades old, written for a single task computer with a screen > resolution of a modern smartphone). > > The integration of collaboration and the "web" into modern desktops > further blurs the line between previously simple and clear separations > of user, OS, applications and network. If Chromium OS is an indicator > of anything it's anticipating the death of the concept of > applications. There is only one application and it does everything. > > What does a "modern" app-centric desktop look like? > Take GNOME 3, brand new and in some ways more app-centric than OS X > (the icon-free desktop and the proposed but not yet implemented > application menu in the top panel > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/AppMenu) > > Windows are a function of their parent application. Everything a user > does begins by clicking on the Activities button and then selecting an > application. Documents are contained within the nautilus > "application". A lot can be argued about the pros and cons of desktops > but it's the most document-centric interface element I can think of. > No particular "application" is providing the content. It's just > "there", the underlying mechanism is abstracted away. > The abstraction is working so well that some people to this day still > haven't grasped the concept of a file system and a file manager > despite having used their desktops for years. > > A good counter-argument to all criticism of app-centric interfaces is > to remind of the success of the iPhone. The only user facing OS level > interface of the iPhone is a thin bar at the top with some info > elements. Everything else is an application or an application > launcher. Everything is done through an application and the user is > made aware of it. People are trained to click on this and that > application icon to do certain "things". > > One could argue that Apple has an interest in promoting application > centric computing that goes beyond providing a good UX: They want to > sell loads of apps on their market and particular applications (like > iTunes) are used to create and increase their brand image. > > On the other side of the coin we have the window-centric interface. > But where does it actually differ? Let's look at Windows XP (I think > everyone is familiar with it) and OS X (I'm not using G3 or Unity > because as mentioned they are still in a progress of implementing an > app-centric model). > The main difference between the two is that in Windows there's the > concept of having multiple instances of an application open at a time > but in reality it's one application with multiple windows. This is an > abstraction that increases flexibility in terms of window and monitor > management but has some unintended logical problems. For example: Why > does changing preferences in window A of application X also affect > window B of application X? OS X is more simple: The application *is* > the icon in the dock, one, more or even no window can be associated to > this application/icon. The preferences are in the menubar, outside the > window. G3 is even more consequent and logical in this regards. > > This isn't really a fundamental paradigm difference and as the Win7 > taskbar shows you can combine both, retaining easy window level > switching via a taskbar AND providing a more logical multi-window > application presentation. Have I missed anything worth mentioning? I > can't think of anything else. > > There is yet another *centric model: a task or document centric one. > Besides Chromium OS a partial implementation can probably be found in > KDE: the KParts as well as aspects of the plasma desktop. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE_Platform#KParts > In some ways also the old UNIX philosophy of the command line, text > streams and pipes, is a task centric environment. "Apps" are just > parts of a bigger concept: creating an environment that empowers the > user to do whatever he wants, not what an application allows - as long > as it's text ;) > > The KDE desktop provides a lot of functionality without opening a > single application and with the use of KParts you have all the > important application level functionality available anywhere you want. > The goal is to provide the user with the best tools without having him > worry about opening or switching to a certain application. > > Now compare that to iTunes: Apples sole goal is to lock its user into > using this application for everything music, video, app, device > management related. This isn't because of interface or user experience > considerations. The reason is vendor lock-in! > > I think the discussion of window or app-centric isn't really that > interesting. Essentially both are doing the same thing, for decades on > the desktop and now on smartphones too. There isn't anything radical > or revolutionary about it. Given the current state of Unity I also > doubt there's room for starting anything radical or revolutionary at > this stage. For now I'd be looking at improving window management and > app launching of Unity on large/multiple desktop monitors. I've made > some suggestions in > "Ideas for Unity 2.0 (no global menu, no panel, improved info area...)"
Before reading the recent threads i had no idea that I can be labeled as a windows-centric user ;) I think that it's not good to go into the direction of this so-called "application centric environment" just because it's supposed to be the modern sexy way to implement a desktop interface. The first thing I did in W7 was to enable the classic theme , get rid of the dock and re-enable the quick launch. I've never had a mac , so I can't comment about it . It all depends on each application. For some applications there is no need to start multiple instances . But there are some applications that are frequently started multiple times : terminals , office suites , editors (gvim) . If I have 2 monitors i really want to take advantage of them and run a program in a terminal, while watching the logs in another terminal on the second screen. I need separate terminals , not multiple tabs in a single terminal . A desktop environment that restricts this is seriously flawed ... Unity should allow the user to start additional instances of an already running application rather than be "smart" and decide_by_design that the user doesn't need to do that. I am suggesting that right-clicking on running application has a menu option "Start new ...". Switching to a particular instance of an application should of course be possible : for example if there are 3 terminals open it would be nice that when hovering the mouse over the icon would open a small window or menu so that the user could click on the desired instance. So I believe that it is possible to please both application- and windows-centric users if there is a bit of good will and no fixation on the idea that application centricity is the ultimate solution. -- Adrian M _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
