https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445559
--- Comment #2 from Tobias G. <tobi.goerg...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #1) > I'm afraid we explicitly don't want to do this. See > https://community.kde.org/Get_Involved/Design/Lessons_Learned#Basic. > 2Fadvanced_modes for the reasons why. > > We will have to come up with another way to make things seem simpler. Thank you very much for the answer and the link! It's great to know that you also think that things have to seem simpler (as you've also written on your blog). Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to preserve all features visible, without it seeming bloated or complex, even if it just was a list of simple checkboxes. One question to the lessons to be learned though: There's stated that users with a big ego might use an "advanced" mode, even though the basic mode would fit them better. I think to use this as an argument is difficult for 2 reasons, including the exact opposite reason: The plasma environment seems pretty complex now for new users, as it lacks such a basic/advanced options, so all users are forced currently to see all options (which would then be the advanced mode), but have no option to switch to a simpler mode. So the exact opposite of what feared there happens right now, inexperienced users without a big ego are forced to look through everything and might be afraid to change something as it seems complex. In my opinion, this is even worse, as users don't even have a chance to make the system seem simpler. Also, this only is an issue if a naming scheme of basic/advanced was used. Naming it e.g. normal/extra might not trigger the big ego issue. This would also help unexperienced users help use the advanced set, as they are only labeled "extra" and not advanced, so it might take their fear to activate/use them. Also, with the work being done on the welcome screen that's currently being developed, it could be explained there what these two modes do and that one does not need to be afraid of activating these options, but also stating that new users of Plasma might be more comfortable with the normal set and how to change to them. It could also be shown in an example, which options are typical to be found in the normal set and which in the extra one. The only other argument is that some users might think an option should be in the normal category and others would think it's an extra option. This issue would be applicable to every approach solving this, as some options HAVE to be more prominent and others will HAVE to be more hidden in some way or another, to take away the complexity just resulting from seeming to be bloated. So yeah, that's every argument made in the lessons to be learned on why this should not be used. I think / hope that this approach has been discussed before and should there have been any other arguments, I'd be happy to address them. As I see the situation currently, solving this issue creates other issues that, because of the nature of a theoretical fix, would always apply to every possible solution and the current situation has its own issue that's costing plasma, as you stated, the majority of the potential user base out there. Also, because of this, I think that this is a severe problem that has to be solved ASAP, to make sure that KDE actually gets to dominate the world. ;) Otherwise, other projects might evolve, that address this issue, might it be GNOME or anything else, just because those can be used by inexperienced users, sacrificing customizebility. This approach would not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
