On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 00:55, Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22. feb. 2012 23:13, Adrian Maier wrote: >> >> The classic gnome2 menu is so efficient that I don't feel the need to >> create shortcuts for applications ... That's why i find it extremely >> productive . > > There is nothing "Gnome 2" about the classic desktop. It's exactly the same > in Gnome Panel 3.
I am mentioning Gnome2 because I haven't seen Gnome3 yet . Ubuntu is still my preferred distribution , and Gnome3 is not available in the versions that i currently use ... >>> If I need to launch an application that is not among my 30 most used >>> applications, then I search. But even if I wanted to navigate by mouse, >>> that >>> wouldn't require more than 20-30 seconds and since this is necessarily >>> something I don't do often, I don't see it as a problem. >> >> In order to search , you need to know the name of the application. >> Ergo , the search feature is not for the complete newbie. > > You'll need to know the name of the application when you use directories as > well. If you don't know that Tomboy is a notes application, then you won't > know that it's a notes application when you see it in the directory either. In fact i think that the problem is that the current implementation doesn't offer some kind of middle ground : - search is good when you know exactly the name of an application - the current Dash is good for the complete newbie who has lots of time to look around . Needs to be shown pretty big icons. Needs to be informed that there are tons of additional apps . But what about the users who are already familiar with Linux and Ubuntu ? I might become happy with the Dash if I were given the chance to customize it a bit : - select a small icons size - disable the Apps available for Download - select a preference that i want to always see all results ( disable "see more N results " ) . - specify how many "recently used" items i'd like to see I really don't need to have half of the screen occupied with applications suggested to be installed. I know how to install software . >>> I test everything. I've been trying out both Xfce, LXDE and Gnome Panel. >>> Those menus are far less productive if you already know what software you >>> have installed. You still need to do manual search of the menus, and no >>> matter how hard I try, I can never match the speed of access that I get >>> with >>> the dash. >> >> I still claim that in order to see what's available a classical menu is >> the >> most efficient way for scanning the application categories and see >> what's installed ... > > Why? You have to explain these things. Simply stating that a single column > is more efficient than a grid, makes no sense. 1. Moving from one category to another is possible by hovering the mouse . I consider this more comfortable and easy. 2. All the applications are visible immediately in a category. You don't need to click on "see more results" . 3. Smaller icons means that more items fit on the screen . 4. A compact view means less scrolling and less click on "see more results" . This is a good thing. 5. Did i mention that with a classic menu there is no need to click a "see more results" ? >> Also, I still claim that any application can be started with exactly 2 >> clicks. >> This is very handy if you know the category. > > The number of clicks isn't as important as the time it takes to figure out > where to click. Exactly : in gnome2 / xfce i can see quickly see the categories and the applications inside the category . It's a compact view that can be navigated based on mouse hover . In unity i have to : - click on filters, - click on a category , - ignore the "applications available for download" - click on "see more N results" - scroll up and down in case there are too many applications (huge icons imply that less items have space on the screen . This implies more scrolling) . > With Unity, the 10-15 most frequently used applications are > launched with one click. The 20-50 second-most used applications can be > launched with 2 or 3 clicks. After that, you'll need to start browsing for > them or search. But that obviously doesn't happen often. It's better to > optimize the things you do all the time, than to optimize the things you > hardly ever do. > >> >> The idea is that i'd like to like Unity . It's missing just a nice >> (backwards compatible) way to browse for applications. > > No, it doesn't. As you pointed out yourself, you can easily browse by > category. It just isn't the main workflow. No, i never said that i find it easy to browse . Please don't put your own opinion into someone else's mouth . Too many clicks . And it's irritating to be forced to click on "see more N results" when there is plenty of screen space . >> My disappointment is because there seems to be a very active resistance to >> any >> suggestion that is about "backporting" features from other desktop >> environments. >> >> It can't be hard to implement a classic app menu when right-clicking on >> the >> desktop. > > No, it isn't difficult. > >> But there is a strong repelling attitude against such features. However >> this >> resistance doesn't make enough sense : I am not suggesting to remove >> the existing "solution". It's about _adding_ a feature . > > Yes, and you are not the only user. You speak as if adding features have no > consequences. Why does bother you so much the existence of a classical apps menu ? I am not suggesting it be forced upon everyone . I am NOT suggesting that the Dash should be removed. > If we add all features that any user on the internet wants, > then you'll have a desktop menu with thousands of entries. You're the very > first person I've seen to ask for this. I don't know how many users would like to have a classic apps menu in addition to the Dash . And you don't know it either. But : you have already mentioned that there is the classical desktop for those who don't want to use unity. Do you _really_ believe that it's a waste of time to try analyzing what do different people dislike ? Do you _really_ believe that it's a waste of time to discuss about improvement ideas that would make a non-follower to become a follower ? >> Speaking of other desktops. You say that you've tried many desktops . >> In this case you are surely aware that gnome2 and Xfce are far more >> customizable : it's possible to create panels on every edge of the screen >> , >> and it's possible to put anything on each of them. If I want a clock in >> the >> bottom left corner I can place it there . If I don't use the Trash, I >> can >> remove it completely. The size of the panels is configurable. And so >> on. > > This has nothing at all to do with Gnome 2. It has to do with Gnome Panel, > which is just as available in Gnome 3 as it is in Gnome 2. If it's > identical, then how can it be less customizable? I can't comment about Gnome3 because i didn't try yet due to Canonical's decision to develop from scratch its own desktop experience ... By "panels" i am referring to those areas that can be placed on the screen edges and where I can add launchers, window list , notifications, clock, drawers, and tons of other stuff. Gnome2 and Xfce4 support such panels. Unity doesn't . >>>> My main showstopper : no classic applications menu. > > If you want the classic desktop, then use it. Unity is not designed to be > that. Of course, you can add as many panels as you like to Unity, including > the menubar you wish for. It's not default, and it won't be. I'm advocating a classic "Applications Menu" , not a classic "Desktop". If i criticize a missing feature it doesn't mean that I reject the whole thing . Believe me that it's very easy for me to turn around and use something else. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of this mailing list and this is the place where the current design/implementation has to be praised by everyone without questioning ? >>> I'm just trying to explain that there is a valid use case for having >>> an application >>> browser that is similar to what all of the previous generation desktop >>> environments >>> have . > > We do. The classic desktop is still there in 12.04. There's nothing wrong > about wanting to use that instead of Unity. But Unity is very close to being usable for me. Why go away instead of coming here to discuss about it ? >> By the way : where is the configuration option that i could enable in >> order to have the filters visible by default ? (he, he - just joking ;) > > It shouldn't be "configurable" at all. It should simply be remembered. They > should be displayed by default, and if you hide them, then they should be > hidden until you display them, and then be displayed until you hide them. True : remembering the visibility of the filters would be good. -- Adrian M -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
