On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 17:35 +0200, Holger Berndt wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:37:29 +0100 Allan Day wrote: > > > Next up: tree sidebar and split view. > > [...] > > > Some criticisms have been levelled at split pane in the past. I don't > > really want to revisit those now. > > I have read statements about split pane in the past that can hardly be > called "criticism" in any constructive or reasonable way. I haven't > read much real criticism yet. In fact, I didn't see any negative > comments from outside of your group at all, yet. > > On the other hand, I got quite some positive feedback from users; and > the press coverage that I've seen after 2.30 was also very positive. > > > I think there are probably better > > ways to integrate this feature into the UI though - Garrett's got > > some good ideas there. > > I'm curious to see those. Even more since Garrett didn't seem to > understand what split pane is all about in the first place.
If you want to discuss the particulars of our proposals, please do so. Let's not make this personal. > > Windows Explorer and Finder have a single sidebar, no tabs and > > no panes, and there are good reasons why they don't. > > Many other default file managers for many years don't have anything > closely remote to GIO/GVFS either. There are good reasons why they > don't. Virtual filesystems for remote places are a pretty obvious > complication for the mental model - but they're also incredibly useful. > I can only guess why I haven't heard much about removing GVFS for > simplicity reasons: Because in contrast to split pane, by > coincidence, you guys use GVFS yourselves. > > That's the danger when having a small group of 2, 3 or 4 individuals > sitting together and thinking about what all the rest of the world > needs, or worse, what it doesn't need: There's a word for that: design. A range of design and usability specialists have been involved in this process, which we are now opening up for discussion. > The view is inherently skewed. I can assure you that the people involved do not have a insular view of users' needs. Quite the opposite, in fact. > But, as you're starting the comparison with MS or Apple products: > Windows and Mac don't have many things that GNOME has. That powers a > huge software industry. > > When you're done with Nautilus, are you going to simplify GEdit down > to what Windows' notepad.exe can do, next? You're misrepresenting what I wrote. I was making a general observation in the context of Nautilus. I didn't suggest that we emulate Windows or OS X in every respect, nor would I. > > The basic aim of the future nautilus proposal is simplification. > > I thought the fundamental design goal was to enable to user to do their > file management tasks easily and efficiently, and simplification was > hoped to be a tool to reach that goal. It is. > I would definitively have agreed > to that, up to a certain extent. But ... > > > Simplicity is a virtue in all kinds of ways. > > ... obviously I was wrong, and simplicity is the goal in its own right. Not true. I described a number of positive consequences of simplicity. > And to that, I do not agree. > > > Paring down the UI is good for users (since it gives them less to > > process), > > No. I can tell you what's good for users: > If the application helps them > to get their work done. They don't open Nautilus to enjoy its look. > Nautilus is a file manager, and people open it when they want to manage > their files. You seem to be suggesting that the design proposal prioritises aesthetics over practicality. That isn't true. > And anyways: Split pane has very, very little impact on the default UI. > It's a single, tiny menu item. I wasn't talking about split pane. This is supposed to be about developing a positive vision for the future. Can we stick to that? Allan -- Jabber: allanpday AT gmail.com IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/ -- nautilus-list mailing list nautilus-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list