On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 12:27 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > In the minds of a lot of people (press and GNOME hackers, and by proxy, > future users), GNOME 3 is very much the user experience defined by GNOME > Shell. And, while I don't have any data to back this up, I'd bet that > people are expecting "GNOME 3 fall-back mode" to be more or less > equivalent to GNOME 2. > > So since (a) in some situations using GNOME 3 in "normal" mode (with > GNOME Shell) is not appropriate, and (b) GNOME fall-back does not > provide the same user experience as GNOME 2, we risk disappointing some > people doubly, if we do not prepare ourselves to manage these expectations. > > That means, IMHO, figuring out some situations when it's inappropriate > to run GNOME Shell, documenting how to manually switch to fall-back mode > if, for example, your card is detected as being Shell capable, but runs > slowly (I had this experience on one SiS chipset on a netbook), and also > managing people's expectations about GNOME Fallback's feature set.
If somebody would like to write up a couple paragraphs about this, I'll do the markup and such and put it into the help. It's a useful topic, I think. -- Shaun -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list