I don't think that you can measure efficiency on the speed of launching an application. After all, we don't spend uor days launching app. We launch them , and we work with them (or play or whatever). The efficiency has to be considered at a high level. In other words : is your work day easier or worse or about the same. For me, since Gnome3 I use the workspaces efficiently (in the sens that I use them more and they allow me to categorize my work) and the "distraction free" environment is really enjoyable. With less distraction I can focus on the work at hand.
So yes, launching an app in Gnome3 can be slower than on Gnome2 (especially if you add a launcher in the taskabr), but except for that particular point Gnome3 is far more efficient. -Cyril On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 14:10 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:19:54 -0500, you wrote: > > >While the article was... interesting... I found a few notable problems > >and false assumptions in it that disprove it's position: > > > >1. "But the danger of studying too much usability theory is not just the > >temptation to assume infallibility." > > > >Last I checked, GNOME never only allowed "one way" to use the desktop. > >Even with GNOME 3, which I admit isn't the most customizable thing in > >the world (though I don't mind), there's quite a few ways to use your > >desktop. You could go mouse-only, keyboard-only, keyboard+mouse... You > > While mouse only is possible in Gnome 3, it is horribly inefficient. > > >2. "For example, in trying to make the launching of applications easier > >and freer of error, both eliminated the classic main menu in favor of > >displays that occupy the entire desktop. This arrangement does improve > >the launching of applications -- but it does so at the cost of obscuring > >the windows that are already open and requiring far more clicks and > >movements away from the active window than the main menu ever did." > > > >GNOME 3 still has an applications menu, as does Unity (I believe, never > >actually used it much). The problem with that assertion is that GNOME 3 > >makes launching applications, dare I say, *faster*. > > Really? In Windows 7 or Mac OS X all I have to do is click on the > icon at the bottom of the screen in the task bar/dock (and I had Gnome > 2 setup similarly). > > Gnome 3 I have to open up activies, then open the app. > > How is a 2 step process faster than a 1 step process? > > >Alt+F2, *and* the traditional menu. Also, I read a post on Planet GNOME > >a while ago that said how GNOME 2 solved some problems that the GNOME 2 > >applications menu had on low-precision input devices, which can be read > >here: > > Wonderful, except I am not using a low-precision device. > > >Has this author even tried to use GNOME 3 for more than 10 (or 30) > >minutes? I'm sure that if he tried to learn how to use the desktop most > >efficiently, he would enjoy it at least slightly. > > I have, and as one who primarily uses the mouse have found it > unusable. It seems designed for those who use their keyboards for > everything. > > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-shell-list mailing list > gnome-shell-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
_______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
