The question about consistence and UI. Of course there many users that use computers in their work or home, which only open one or two applications, and for these people there is no need for customizing.
How many people here use the same car, with the same features, color, etc? Clean, Concise, Consistent "C3", are really good words to express a good User Interface Design Concept. But differentiation are a deep part of Human Nature. People like express their personality, way of organizing ideas when using Screen Devices. Theming is one of coolest feature of SmartPhones, and has a big marketing for this. MS Windows was not so nice for customizing, but MS, sold Microsoft Plus. What amazing part of Windows History. Many people bought (or pirate) to only be able to express new Art design for their desktop.. Theming MUST be a central part of an UI design, and not the contrary. May be you like a Black Car so deep, that you could say "Every Client could choose the color, since be Black" Good taste to make a Bealty C3, is very important. But, itsn't the opposite to theming and customizing. FOSS is all about changing, customizing. Peoplo get a FOOS and pay for someone adapt to their needs, C3 could never be Static Interface. C3 interface must be fluidness. For example, I had only a good eye (my right eye), then a Left Static Bar, is really awful. Not only for me, but many skillful persons would prefer a Right Bar. G3 need to be a C3 fluidness interface and not the contrary. Job 2011/6/10 Milan Bouchet-Valat <nalimi...@club.fr> > Le vendredi 10 juin 2011 à 11:25 +0100, Allan Day a écrit : > > One possibility for extensions would be to turn them into something more > > akin to Google Labs - that is, something that is communicated and > > structured as an experimentation ground, rather than a market place that > > we encourage users to use (the very name 'extension' does just that). > > The other nice thing about Google Labs is that the experimental nature > > of the features it contains is clearly communicated. > I think the main reference here is the way Firefox manages extensions. > Many people use stock Firefox, and it works very well, but many others > like to play with appearance (personas, equivalent to our themes), or > need a specific feature (extensions, in both terminologies). This > example is quite positive. The fact that people can easily extend their > desktop encourages them to support it and hack on it. IMHO, the > available stock of extensions is one of the reasons why many GNOME fans > use Firefox rather than Epiphany. > > While I'm a big supporter of the "default desktop consistent and great > for everybody" approach (and I'm not running any extensions), I don't > think it hurts the GNOME brand to promote extensions. At the end of the > day, people who use them know that they aren't stock GNOME, and how to > disable them if they want to get the default experience. The difference > with the applets mess is that in GNOME 2 there was no default > experience: everything was applets, and once you had messed with your > panel, you had no clear way of resetting it. With the Shell, you can > just disable extensions. > > Finally, extensions makes it easier to enforce a common design that > works for 95% of users, while allowing the remaining 5% to do what they > like. This is a good way for designers to turn down complaints and keep > hackers happy. ;-) > > > Regards > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
