> 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 who do not pin these programs to their left bar? On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ed Lin <edlin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Phong Cao <phn...@gmail.com> 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 maximized windows of > > LibreOffice, 2 Terminal windows and 1 Nautilus window. > > 2. Now switch between the windows of different applications. You can > easily > > see that: > > - In Gnome Shell: I hover the mouse to the top-left, which takes almost 1 > > second. Then all 9 windows are shown on the screen for me to choose from. > > This makes things simple and easier. > > - In Unity: > > + The best way to switch between applications in Unity is using the > > keyboard. > > + Other than that, I will have to hover the mouse to the left and then > > "guess" "Where is my Chrome/Terminal/LibreOffice icon?" to click on. > > + This causes lots of confusion and time consuming since everytime I want > to > > switch between DIFFERENT applications I have to "guess" the icon position > > again. > > + This should not be a problem if you keep the left panel always visible. > > However, Gnome Shell does not sacrifice any horizontal screen space and > > still achieve the result I need. > > Lastly, please do not use the age of Unity as an excuse. I am tired of > > people saying that "Because Unity is just ... months old and Gnome Shell > has > > been.... decades old so Gnome Shell is better". > > Gnome Shell will always be older than Unity and Unity will always use > this > > statement as an excuse for its weaknesses. Unity will hardly improve if > its > > developers use age to say it is better or worse than Shell. > > Weaknesses do not come from age. They come from the design philosophy of > the > > developers. > > If the philosophy is wrong from the start and left unchanged, Unity will > > hardly gets any better regardless of its age. > > > > You sadly didn't reply to any of my points. > The "expose view" in GNOME 3 can be done in Unity too: add a launcher > icon for the scale view (=super+w) and you could do it with two clicks > of the mouse (the keyboard will be faster of course in every case, > exactly as fast as G3). A hot corner is a tiny bit faster but what if > you have only one window of an application open and the launcher could > be set to never hide? > One click, one single straight movement of the mouse to the screen > edge - Unity "wins". > > You forgot that launcher icons never move, they are predictable, a lot > more so than the dynamic scale view. > > I'm going to represent my ideas for Unity 2.0/Oneiric which among > other things could significantly improve on the window switching in > your particular user case. > > > (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... > > > Oh, if everything was that easy... ;) > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp