On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Jonas Häggqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan Gordon wrote: > > > > Put simply, my take on this issue is that I want more GNOME, and less KDE > mentality. I may use 30 out of 200 settings. Now if we say that was cut in > half, to 100 available settings, I might lose 10 settings. Would I miss > them? Probably at first, but in my experience (from using GNOME through > the slimming down of options), I'd quickly forget that I ever needed it, > and frankly, taking away some choices from has made me focus less on the > environment, and more on doing actual work. > > It seems, though that Rockbox developers, on average have more of a > KDE-style mindset. > > -- > Jonas Häggqvist > rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk > I completely agree with Jonas. I think that there is too much focus on what can be customized rather than basic usability. Making /sane/ defaults for users is not such a bad thing. I do think though that gnome does a good job of having quite a bit of flexibility for power users that want to dive into gconf which leads to cause for having a separate plugin or application for "advanced" settings beyond the basic options. I think it is an excellent compromise between simplicity and power. The biggest complaint that I hear on Rockbox from non-techies is the usability; adding more settings does not solve the problem.
