One thing I forgot: distraction. If you have several windows open on a
desktop you'll have to move outside the window you are currently
working in and both move your eyes and the cursor across other windows
(and maybe a distracting wallpaper or a cluttered desktop). Don't
think that matters? Google
Just my 0.02$ on Fitts's Law vs. Unity (some, if not all, have already been
put forth):
I don't think one can, with 100% accuracy, apply Fitts's Law to the
Unity-interface. Reason being that Fitts's Law deals with visible,
consistent interfaces that do not change. In Unity, when an application is
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:38 PM, David Regev wrote:
> I have yet to see an actual study arguing against the efficiency of global
> menus, not even for large modern monitors. If you want to take the return
> trip into account and other such factors, feel free to do so. The
> preliminary calculation
I already said this but I'll repeat it to prevent being misunderstood:
I maintain that Fitts's Law is absolutely accurate and helpful for
what it describes. The problem is that it doesn't describe all factors
necessary for a full assessment and is often applied in a too simple
and linear (literally
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 08:05, Ed Lin wrote:
> W in this context depends on acceleration curve and distance, it's not
> fixed! That's the reason one may be tempted to start calculating with
> infinity and mathematically speaking its use is absolutely correct. "You are
> not supposed to" doesn't
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:28 PM, David Regev wrote:
> The equation doesn’t break down here because you’re not supposed to put in
> ∞. Although the edge may theoretically be infinitely long, it’s not in
> practice. Any human being aiming at the edge will stop within a certain
> distance past the e
On 5/22/11, Ed Lin wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Ralph Green wrote:
>> If this is some kind of principle that guides the decision to use
>> the global menu, then it is time to change. I am quite experienced
>> with the mouse and how to use it. I use as much acceleration as is
>> re
The equation doesn’t break down here because you’re not supposed to put in
∞. Although the edge may theoretically be infinitely long, it’s not in
practice. Any human being aiming at the edge will stop within a certain
distance past the edge. That means that, effectively, *W* is a certain fixed
quan
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Ralph Green wrote:
> If this is some kind of principle that guides the decision to use
> the global menu, then it is time to change. I am quite experienced
> with the mouse and how to use it. I use as much acceleration as is
> reasonable. It would not be an imp
>> screens. That is certainly not my experience. ... The
>> question is how typical am I?
This will probably hurt my case, but I have been thinking about this
part. Part of the Fitt's Law calculation is also based on the target
size. The theory is supposed to imply that a target at the edge
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Bazon wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 19.05.2011, 23:49 +0200 schrieb Ed Lin:
>
>> ()
>> 2.C)
>> horizontal menu in the title bar
>> It simply won't work: See
>> https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/msg05619.html (the whole thread,
>> my reply: https://lists.launchp
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Bazon wrote:
> No solution yet? Unbelievable, so I answered your issues right there.
> I still believe toggeling between window title and menu ALWAYS on all
> windows (not just the maximized ones) is the best and very consistent
> solution.
>
My apologies. For some
Am Donnerstag, den 19.05.2011, 23:49 +0200 schrieb Ed Lin:
> ()
> 2.C)
> horizontal menu in the title bar
> It simply won't work: See
> https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/msg05619.html (the whole thread,
> my reply: https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/msg05645.html ) I
> haven't seen a soluti
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:50 AM, David Stevenson wrote:
> Viewed from a slightly different perspective, there is a view that the
> existing menu layout is best for newbies and this list consists of
> traditional power users which is why they don't like it.
> I do not agree with this, but I think
On 05/20/2011 12:50 AM, David Stevenson wrote:
Viewed from a slightly different perspective, there is a view that the
existing menu layout is best for newbies and this list consists of
traditional power users which is why they don't like it.
I do not agree with this, but I think it is a valid arg
On 19/05/11 22:49, Ed Lin wrote:
> The mailing list is for discussions. I think we (the people posting
> here since the release of natty and the last few months or so) reached
> a consensus that some changes to the Unity application menu with a
> focus on desktops is needed better sooner than late
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, GonzO Rodrigue wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Ed Lin wrote:
>>
>> There can be more said about it and there's been written a lot on the
>> list already. There's nothing really new to see here and I'm repeating
>> myself as well. The thing is, we are goi
> > It's about impossible to use "focus follows mouse" and multiple
> > windows with the global menu, which makes it unusable for me.
>
> Not entirely possible -- I use F10 to get to the menus. But I'll
> agree, it is pretty inconvenient.
F10 just opens the volume control for me. I may have chan
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Ralph Green wrote:
> 2. MPT seems to think the global menu is quicker, even on large
> screens. That is certainly not my experience. ... The
> question is how typical am I?
> 3. Why do people keep referring to Fitt's law. It does not apply to
> 2 dimensions,
On 19/05/2011 16:57, Florian Diesch wrote:
>
> It's about impossible to use "focus follows mouse" and multiple windows
> with the global menu, which makes it unusable for me.
Not entirely possible -- I use F10 to get to the menus. But I'll agree, it is
pretty inconvenient.
--
Kind regards,
Loon
It's about impossible to use "focus follows mouse" and multiple windows
with the global menu, which makes it unusable for me.
Am Donnerstag, den 19.05.2011, 10:42 +0200 schrieb Niklas Rosenqvist
:
I don't know if they spoke about it at UDS since I wasn't attending
and I myself don't think tha
I don't know if they spoke about it at UDS since I wasn't attending and I
myself don't think that the global menu improves anything except less
desktop clutter, but at the cost of making it crippled. And I think that
both Fitt's law and Steering law may be applicable since both laws are used
for hu
On 5/18/11, Niklas Rosenqvist wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughts Ralph! That statement you quoted was just after the
> 11.04 release and since then I've completely changed my mind about the
> global menu bar which you can see in more recent discussions. Though there
> have been some proposed soluti
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Phong Cao wrote:
>
> If you feel that Unity is optimal compared to G3 then it is your opinion and
> the Unity developers team can keep that opinion and wait to see the result of
> G3 vs Unity.
> Again, it all depends on the users. I use G3 simply because I dont w
>
> Well I think using the amount of "clicks" to compare which desktop is
> faster or more efficient is not a good way of doing it.
>
> We disagree on this.
> The number of different things I have to do to accomplish task X has
multiplied in Gnome3. I'm sure I could get used to it, and by doing
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Phong Cao wrote:
> What I am talking about here is SWITCHING and MANAGING applications, not
> OPENING applications. In Shell I just need ONE CLICK to manage ALL OF MY 9
> WINDOWS.
The panel is for switching, opening _and_ managing "Applications".
It is not for man
You only maximize the efficiency of a workflow if its regular and
repetitive. Someone not using terminals won't care much about the
placement of the panel icon for the one off cut and paste command.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Phong Cao wrote:
>> You forgot that launcher icons never move, th
> You forgot that launcher icons never move, they are predictable, a lot
> more so than the dynamic scale view.
They are only predictable if they were already "pinned" to the left bar. I
use Chrome & Libre & Terminal a lot so I always pin them to the left bar.
But how about the occasional users wh
What I am talking about here is SWITCHING and MANAGING applications, not
OPENING applications. In Shell I just need ONE CLICK to manage ALL OF MY 9
WINDOWS.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Phong Cao wrote:
> > About Unity & Gnome Shell... no
@Ed, Super + W shows all the windows, but there's no mouse interaction
available to do that as far as I'm aware. Showing all the Firefox windows is
possible by clicking on the icon, but not all the windows.
On 29 April 2011 18:48, Ed Lin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Phong Cao wrote
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Phong Cao wrote:
> About Unity & Gnome Shell... none of them is better than the other. It
> depends on the users.
> I am the kind of user that never open less than 5 windows at a time.
>
> As I explained above:
> 1. Try to open 3 maximized windows of Chrome, 3 maxi
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Phong Cao wrote:
> About Unity & Gnome Shell... none of them is better than the other. It
> depends on the users.
> I am the kind of user that never open less than 5 windows at a time.
>
> As I explained above:
> 1. Try to open 3 maximized windows of Chrome, 3 maxi
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 16:29, Phong Cao wrote:
> About Unity & Gnome Shell... none of them is better than the other. It
> depends on the users.
> I am the kind of user that never open less than 5 windows at a time.
>
> As I explained above:
> 1. Try to open 3 maximized windows of Chrome, 3 maximi
(I am just trying to explain my thought... no offense). I am sorry if any of
you guys feel hurt but i just say the truths...
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Phong Cao wrote:
> About Unity & Gnome Shell... none of them is better than the other. It
> depends on the users.
>
> I am the kind of use
About Unity & Gnome Shell... none of them is better than the other. It
depends on the users.
I am the kind of user that never open less than 5 windows at a time.
As I explained above:
1. Try to open 3 maximized windows of Chrome, 3 maximized windows of
LibreOffice, 2 Terminal windows and 1 Nautil
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Phong Cao wrote:
> I am too have been for a long time a Ubuntu's fan. However, I am not trying
> to be negative but... I would say that Unity's design is way far behind
> GNOME Shell in Fedora 15. I recommend anybody in this email list try out
> Fedora 15 & GNOME
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Phong Cao wrote:
>>
>> Gnome3 is, in almost every way, a usability regression. It simply takes
>> many times more work (clicks, drags, gestures, etc. etc.) to perform almost
>> any given action (opening an app, closing an app, finding an app, etc. etc.)
>> in
I have one point of criticism about the global menubar that I have not
read about here.
I'm using two monitors and I think that Gnome2 did a particularly good
jobs there. I could easily grab a window by the title bar and drag it
across monitors and workspaces. Maximizing and minimizing applica
Use GNOME Shell for a week and then you will know why...
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Phong Cao wrote:
> > I am too have been for a long time a Ubuntu's fan. However, I am not
> trying
> > to be negative but... I would say that Unity's des
Gnome3 is, in almost every way, a usability regression. It simply takes
many times more work (clicks, drags, gestures, etc. etc.) to perform almost
any given action (opening an app, closing an app, finding an app, etc. etc.)
in G3 than it does in either Unity or G2.
By way of example, window mana
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> Hi, my name is Niklas Rosenqvist and I recently sent this message to
> David Barth who forwarded it to a couple of people and I thought I
> might post it here as well to see what reactions it might get. I'm
> fairly new to the ubuntu c
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Phong Cao wrote:
> I am too have been for a long time a Ubuntu's fan. However, I am not trying
> to be negative but... I would say that Unity's design is way far behind
> GNOME Shell in Fedora 15. I recommend anybody in this email list try out
> Fedora 15 & GNOME S
I am too have been for a long time a Ubuntu's fan. However, I am not trying
to be negative but... I would say that Unity's design is way far behind
GNOME Shell in Fedora 15. I recommend anybody in this email list try out
Fedora 15 & GNOME Shell and learn from their simplicity. (Just my thought,
no
43 matches
Mail list logo
