Re: Appearance properties

[Calum Benson]

On 10 Nov 2009, at 17:18, Bastien Nocera wrote:

> It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not
> sure what else we can do.

This, for example...



Cheeri,
Calum.

-- 
CALUM BENSON, Interaction Designer Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:calum.ben...@sun.comOpenSolaris Desktop Team
http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771

Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Forcing button icons (Re: Appearance properties)

[Tristan Van Berkom]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Andre "Osku" Schmidt
 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 13:02 -0200, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>> Just to be sure.. are you declaring your button as a stock
>> button with stock ids for the play pause buttons ?
>>
>> ... or are you using a button with GtkImage set explicitly
>> from Glade ?
>
> screenshot1(+b).png is with "label with optional image"
> screenshot2.png is with "stock button" (this used to work)
>
> in both cases there is no icon displayed.
>
> ok, it seems "custom button content" (hups, didn't notice this option
> before, sorry) seems to work. is this the recommended way ?
>

I would really rather not, Custom button content should really be for
cases where you need to customize - Originally I put that option
there because there was no way to assign a custom label/image
in a button (Glade-2 did something similar, only it exposed the
option and saved the file with an added GtkHBox/GtkAlignment
to position the label and image properly).

This activity of setting up an HBox/Alignment manually for your
button involves trying to mimic the spacing/alignment of a GtkButton which
could even change in the future, leaving your application looking awkward
with custom buttons grouped along with normal ones.

Well, after reading this:
   http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/stable/GtkButton.html#gtk-button-set-image

It seems like the "image" property of a GtkButton is ignored in the case
of "gtk-button-images = FALSE"

It seems that I've been happily unaware of this feature in GTK+ for some
years, since I have never encountered a desktop with this setting set
to FALSE, and it seems nobody else ever has either - or I would expect
to have received bug reports in Glade about this confusion by now.

Anyway, I have to say I'm a bit peeved about this policy of stomping on
the _explicitly_user_assigned_ GtkButton:image-widget property for the sake of
some desktop setting, returning a stock button with or without an
image based on
that criteria might have been more acceptable, since the definition of what a
stock button is, is left up to GTK+.

Actually I was really happy to see the addition of the "image-widget"
and "image-position" properties, but it seems that that is all just dead-code,
if the image-position/image-widget cant be used with the obscure setting
set to FALSE, and now with the setting default to FALSE, its just useless :(
(what a shame that I even spent time to expose those properties in a nice
way from the Glade GUI).

What am I expected to do, if Im expected to do anything about it at all;
just put some kind of big fat warning in Glade telling the user that "image"
and "image-position" properties are only useful on some remaining systems
that dont muck about with this "gtk-button-images" setting ?

Man the way information flows around here... we are obviously not... a team.

Cheers to a new graveyard in gtkbutton.c...

Regards,
   -Tristan
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Forcing button icons (Re: Appearance properties)

[Tristan Van Berkom]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Andre "Osku" Schmidt
 wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given
>> on how to get the icons back.
>
> i remember there was also a hint about the application now needing to
> "force" an icon on a button. (but cant seem to find the mail)
>
> could someone point me to this/any document/info/example ?
>
> im trying to do a play/pause button in glade3 (gtkbuilder), and i just
> cant get any icons shown in a button any more... (nope, didn't get any
> answer on this at glade mailing list)

Are you sure ? that sounds a little ridiculous.

I would just let this whole desktop icons discussion pass without
comment... but something smells wrong...

Just to be sure.. are you declaring your button as a stock
button with stock ids for the play pause buttons ?

... or are you using a button with GtkImage set explicitly
from Glade ?

If it were the former, I can understand - what GTK+ creates
as a "stock play button" for your application is completely
up to GTK+, if it doesnt come with an icon because of a setting,
that can still be perceived as expectable behaviour.

Please clarify because if it were the latter, it would mean that
the GtkBuilder spec is just invalid for desktops who have this
"no icons" setting enabled.

FWIW, I really dont care so much about this setting default
being changed in the desktop UI without any announcement,
actually I think this is what we have UI freezes for.

But you cant go break the GtkBuilder spec because you disagree
with a said application author about explicitly placing an image
somewhere in their interface, be it in a button, or wherever.

Sigh, anyway please let me know if this is the case, hopefully
I'm jumping to some conclusion here, and GTK+ only hides
icons that GTK+ created in stock buttons, or some expectable
behavior, that can easily be worked around when customizing
your applications look and feel.

Otherwise my god what a mess we have to deal with...

Cheers,
-Tristan
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Forcing button icons (Re: Appearance properties)

[Andre "Osku" Schmidt]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: 
> The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given
> on how to get the icons back.

i remember there was also a hint about the application now needing to
"force" an icon on a button. (but cant seem to find the mail)

could someone point me to this/any document/info/example ?

im trying to do a play/pause button in glade3 (gtkbuilder), and i just
cant get any icons shown in a button any more... (nope, didn't get any
answer on this at glade mailing list)

cheers
.andre


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Stefan Kost]

Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 19:03 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
>
>   
>>> It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not
>>> sure what else we can do.
>>>   
>> Andreas blogged about it after the changes, on July 24, as "GNOME Art 
>> team" (which sound strange, I would expect this kind of change to be 
>> discussed and announced by usability team)).
>> 
>
> you, and others on this thread, make it look like everything was decided
> in a vacuum. I can't discern how much of this is intentional (and thus
> made by people actively trying to poison GNOME as a community), but it's
> there and it's mightily *pissing me off*.
>
> both the change of the default schema value and the removal of the
> Interface tab in the Appearance control center applet weren't decisions
> made in a vacuum.
>   
Still its seems to have caught a lot of people by surprise. All the
people here that are not so much in favour of this change, seems to only
have heard of it *after* the decission has been made. Its totally
obvious that people in charge don't want to change it back. We should
learn form this incident and make this more public. Write a proposal to
DDL and not just inform about a decission. Thats all.

Stefan
> the bugs were discussed in a public venue (with a slightly better
> signal-to-noise ratio than d-d-l, if this thread should demonstrate the
> SNR of d-d-l); the usability team was involved in the discussion; the
> art team was involved in the discussion; the release team was involved
> in the discussion; the maintainers of all interested modules were
> involved in the discussion; the documentation team was notified (and
> involved).
>
> it was announced on PGO, the most public venue we have, by one of the
> parts involved.
>
> short of going door to door to every GNOME user, tell me: what should
> have been done? or maybe was just a case of sending a personal email to
> every packager, distro developer and maintainer of GNOME projects? and
> how much time should have been allotted for a reply? more or less than
> the 4 months that passed between the discussion and the 2.28 release?
>
> GNOME, like any other community effort, is made by those who show up.
>
> ciao,
>  Emmanuele.
>
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>   

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2009/11/10 Rodrigo Moya :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
>> dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.
>>
> wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry, we are
> sending Lennart to an empty island without Internet soon, just be
> patient
>

Rodrigo, please read my follow up about this one. I like PA, I use it
everywhere I can. I didn't attack Lennart in any way and I am sorry if
it really seemed so. I just pointed out obvious - lot of people are
confused and frustrated about PA efforts because they basic sound
doesn't work. It worked before. So it is regression. And I know only
way forward is to help Lennart to squash these bugs, doing proper bug
reports and etc.

This situation is similar and while I as a user completely trust GNOME
developers in making decisions about desktop design, so far it have
caused similar confusion.

Cheers,
Peteris.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Rodrigo Moya]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:05 -0800, Dylan McCall wrote:
> > So instead of making this thread bigger, why don't people go to write a
> > 'Interface' capplet, starting with what there was on the Interface tab?
> > If it's done correctly, we can even think about including it in
> > gnome-control-center! :)
> 
> On that topic, it strikes me as fairly logical to mix a new Interface
> capplet in with the window preferences. Good luck, whoever does it!
> 
might be, yeah, although not sure how the Windows capplet fits in with
gnome-shell. If it does, it might make sense, if not, what about a
'Menus & toolbars' capplet?

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Andreas Nilsson]

On 11/10/2009 10:58 PM, Guillaume Desmottes wrote:

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens a écrit :
   

So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I
would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
 

I think the biggest problem in this story is not the change itself but
the way it has been managed.

The change of default configuration has *not* been communicated
properly. It was not secret, of course, but such important change
affecting the whole desktop and each GNOME/GTK+ applications deserves a
better communication. It should be announced on ddl at the beginning of
the cycle, explaining the rational of the change, telling to maintainers
about the new policy regarding icons and how they should make sure that
their application still work fine. A plan should has been defined to
ensure that all the applications (not only the GNOME ones but also the
popular Gtk+ apps used on most GNOME desktop) wouldn't suffer from the
change.
   
Yes, agreed. I am partly to blame for this, as I was involved in the 
discussion on the bug from the start, and because it was something the 
art team [1] (and UI people and hackers too) wanted to see happen. 
Somewhat I imagined the discussion on the bug report was enough, being 
quite active as it was, but it's hard to see things from another point 
of view while you're in the middle of a information flow. I'm terribly 
sorry for that. Will try to do better next time.

If I was paranoid I'd be tempted to think that this miss-communication
could have been somewhat intentional. If you want to push a
controversial change, it's easier to not talk too much about it before
so once people complain it's too late and they just have to suck it up.
I'm not accusing anyone and really hope that this wasn't the case (as
our code of conduct says we should assume that people mean well), but
you have to understand why some people are upset about the way this
whole thing has been managed.
I must admit that I try to avoid posting too much on this list, as the 
traffic volume is quite high at points already, but perhaps things can 
go a bit too silent at times too.


1. Frederic Crozat was curious about who had discussed what at GCDS 
exactly. The people in the room was me, Hylke Bons, Vinicius Depizzol, 
Jakub Steiner, Garrett Lesarge, Benjamin Berg and Kalle Persson. We 
really wanted to see a cleaner desktop experience. It was also mentioned 
during the big GNOME 3.0 talk, but sorry if I was unclear during the 
talk. I was really nervous while doing that and can't really remember 
what was said and not. :/


- Andreas
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Guillaume Desmottes]

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens a écrit :
> So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I
> would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.

I do share your concerns.

I think the biggest problem in this story is not the change itself but
the way it has been managed.

The change of default configuration has *not* been communicated
properly. It was not secret, of course, but such important change
affecting the whole desktop and each GNOME/GTK+ applications deserves a
better communication. It should be announced on ddl at the beginning of
the cycle, explaining the rational of the change, telling to maintainers
about the new policy regarding icons and how they should make sure that
their application still work fine. A plan should has been defined to
ensure that all the applications (not only the GNOME ones but also the
popular Gtk+ apps used on most GNOME desktop) wouldn't suffer from the
change.

Instead of that, most of the people discovered this change after it has
been merged (or when they upgraded their GNOME) and, afaik, there are
still no clear guidelines for maintainers explaining how they should
deal with icons (maybe such doc exists but if it does it hasn't been
communicated enough).

If I was paranoid I'd be tempted to think that this miss-communication
could have been somewhat intentional. If you want to push a
controversial change, it's easier to not talk too much about it before
so once people complain it's too late and they just have to suck it up.
I'm not accusing anyone and really hope that this wasn't the case (as
our code of conduct says we should assume that people mean well), but
you have to understand why some people are upset about the way this
whole thing has been managed.


Finally, I think it's a bit sad that we spend more time discussing if
it's ok to use $LANGUAGE to write GNOME apps and almost ignore such big
change affecting the experience of any GNOME user in any application...


Regards,


G.


-- 
Guillaume Desmottes 
Jabber 
GPG 1024D/711E31B1 | 1B5A 1BA8 11AA F0F1 2169  E28A AC55 8671 711E 31B1

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 10.11.09 21:58, Rodrigo Moya (rodr...@gnome-db.org) wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> > Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
> > dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.
> >
> wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry, we are
> sending Lennart to an empty island without Internet soon, just be
> patient

Not sure what PA has to do with all of this, but if I google for "I
Love PulseAudio" I get > 21K results. If I google for "I Hate
PulseAudio" I only find < 16K results. Not sure what Peteris wanted to
say, but I am quite sure that PA is not really suitable as an example
for whatever it is.

There are those who create and those who complain. And yes it is
absolutely right if the former choose to disregard the latter, if they
have reason to and they want to get things done.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/   GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Dylan McCall]

> So instead of making this thread bigger, why don't people go to write a
> 'Interface' capplet, starting with what there was on the Interface tab?
> If it's done correctly, we can even think about including it in
> gnome-control-center! :)

On that topic, it strikes me as fairly logical to mix a new Interface
capplet in with the window preferences. Good luck, whoever does it!

Dylan


(And for the record, I am very much in favour of this decisiveness in
toolbar layout since it will make things easier and more stable for
application developers).

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Rodrigo Moya]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
> dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.
>
wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry, we are
sending Lennart to an empty island without Internet soon, just be
patient

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

RE: Appearance properties

[Rodrigo Moya]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 15:41 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote:

> 
> I'm more than ready to help to improve the things and also
> I want to become one of significant contributors, but first
> I do not know how many developers GNOME have and its
> responsibilities, I do not know how whole life-cycle goes,
> etc. I mean I know something but not on satisfying level
> to be able to develop.
> 
start working on some GNOME module of your choice (hint: interface tweak
capplet in gnome-control-center :) and you'll start knowing all that and
much more :D


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Andre Klapper]

Hmm.
This seems to turn into a flamewar with personal attacks.
Don't like that.

The Code of Conduct at http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct states
"Assume people mean well", and while we disagree on decisions itself
and/or their parameters (where, how and when it was discussed, decided
and announced) I still prefer to assume that we do this because we are
patient about GNOME.
I hope that everybody agrees and that the thread remains (or "becomes
again"?) constructive.

andre

-- 
 mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed
 http://www.iomc.de/  | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Rodrigo Moya]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > > So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> > > I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. 
> > 
> > Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug:
> > 
> > I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a
> > way, then it should be done through an appropriate "tweaks" application.
> > The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the
> > majority of users.
> 
> Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not
> to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop?
> 
> The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is
> highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I
> would like wider acceptance before.
> 
even though I don't like much the change, this was discussed not only
between Thomas and Jon, it was discussed on the gnome-control-center
list as well, iirc, as d-d-l, so the decision has been made after a lot
of discussion (and previous bashing)

So instead of making this thread bigger, why don't people go to write a
'Interface' capplet, starting with what there was on the Interface tab?
If it's done correctly, we can even think about including it in
gnome-control-center! :)

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Emmanuele Bassi]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 19:03 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:

> > It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not
> > sure what else we can do.
> 
> Andreas blogged about it after the changes, on July 24, as "GNOME Art 
> team" (which sound strange, I would expect this kind of change to be 
> discussed and announced by usability team)).

you, and others on this thread, make it look like everything was decided
in a vacuum. I can't discern how much of this is intentional (and thus
made by people actively trying to poison GNOME as a community), but it's
there and it's mightily *pissing me off*.

both the change of the default schema value and the removal of the
Interface tab in the Appearance control center applet weren't decisions
made in a vacuum.

the bugs were discussed in a public venue (with a slightly better
signal-to-noise ratio than d-d-l, if this thread should demonstrate the
SNR of d-d-l); the usability team was involved in the discussion; the
art team was involved in the discussion; the release team was involved
in the discussion; the maintainers of all interested modules were
involved in the discussion; the documentation team was notified (and
involved).

it was announced on PGO, the most public venue we have, by one of the
parts involved.

short of going door to door to every GNOME user, tell me: what should
have been done? or maybe was just a case of sending a personal email to
every packager, distro developer and maintainer of GNOME projects? and
how much time should have been allotted for a reply? more or less than
the 4 months that passed between the discussion and the 2.28 release?

GNOME, like any other community effort, is made by those who show up.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Iain]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Frederic Crozat  wrote:

> There was no prior discussion on usability list and when people raised
> concerns on it after the change was made (and even now) or how it was made,
> they are being treated like children.

The developer is in charge of the project, stop treating them like children.
If you don't like it, you've got the source.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Frederic Crozat]

Le 10/11/2009 18:18, Bastien Nocera a écrit :

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:

Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit :

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:

Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :



It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any
kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application.

That is the reason why I had to revert the "icon in button" and "icon in
menu" on Mandriva Linux 2010.


Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
give for something so easily fixable.


I don't remember seeing the announcement for this change anywhere and
people discovered it after libgnome 2.27.5 was released in end of july
(or a little before when it was committed on July 14).


It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not
sure what else we can do.


Andreas blogged about it after the changes, on July 24, as "GNOME Art 
team" (which sound strange, I would expect this kind of change to be 
discussed and announced by usability team)).


The "announcement" was a simple "Visible control to toggle icons in 
buttons" with absolutely nothing indicative of what people might find in 
the mail itself and was sent on July 22.


That is not "proper" announcement.

There was no prior discussion on usability list and when people raised 
concerns on it after the change was made (and even now) or how it was 
made, they are being treated like children.


PS : there is no need to cc me for any reply, I'm subscribed to this list.
--
Frederic Crozat
Mandriva
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> >> Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > 
> >> It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
> >> was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any
> >> kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application.
> >>
> >> That is the reason why I had to revert the "icon in button" and "icon in
> >> menu" on Mandriva Linux 2010.
> >
> > Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
> > months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
> > give for something so easily fixable.
> 
> I don't remember seeing the announcement for this change anywhere and 
> people discovered it after libgnome 2.27.5 was released in end of july 
> (or a little before when it was committed on July 14).

It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not
sure what else we can do.


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Vincent Untz]

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009, à 12:02 -0500, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Frederic Crozat
> 
> There's plenty of announcements of changes, every day, over there:
> 
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/svn-commits-list/

Matthias, this is not a fair answer. It's a fact that changes that
affect the whole desktop have to be announced, at a minimum to other
developers. And the commit list is not appropriate for this.

The change about the setting (so not the one about the tab removal) does
affect our applications because we had to make sure some icons stayed
visible (or that some other were really removed).

FWIW, I think it was discussed/announced on gnomecc-list, in bugs, on
irc. More communication could have been done, still. (And yes, more
communication would have implied a long thread about it, but we still
had the long thread in the end)

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Emmanuele Bassi]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:48 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
>  
> > Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
> > months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
> > give for something so easily fixable.
> 
> The issue here is too few people are running dev version of GNOME
> desktop. Also lots of people just assumed that it was a stupid bug that
> will quickly be fixed.

again this word, "lots". I don't think it means what you think it means.

> Did you announced that setting change before apply the patch and waited
> for advices? Did you announce that interface tab is going to be removed?

yes.

> I'm not even sure that was on ddl... and even if that was the case, I
> think it's not enough...

next time, the maintainers will come around your house and ring your
bell, and tell you in person.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Frederic Crozat

There's plenty of announcements of changes, every day, over there:

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/svn-commits-list/
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Frederic Crozat]

Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit :

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:

Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :



It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any
kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application.

That is the reason why I had to revert the "icon in button" and "icon in
menu" on Mandriva Linux 2010.


Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
give for something so easily fixable.


I don't remember seeing the announcement for this change anywhere and 
people discovered it after libgnome 2.27.5 was released in end of july 
(or a little before when it was committed on July 14).


--
Frederic Crozat
Mandriva
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Xavier Claessens]

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 16:36 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> 
> > It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape 
> > was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any 
> > kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application.
> > 
> > That is the reason why I had to revert the "icon in button" and "icon in 
> > menu" on Mandriva Linux 2010.
> 
> Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
> months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
> give for something so easily fixable.

The issue here is too few people are running dev version of GNOME
desktop. Also lots of people just assumed that it was a stupid bug that
will quickly be fixed.

Also we don't have ML to announce the big changes in GNOME. A little
email can easily be sent to ddl without being really noticed by users
and third parties.

Did you announced that setting change before apply the patch and waited
for advices? Did you announce that interface tab is going to be removed?
I'm not even sure that was on ddl... and even if that was the case, I
think it's not enough...

Xavier Claessens.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Jud Craft]

> Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
> months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
> give for something so easily fixable.

4 months isn't a single GNOME release cycle.  How would they get
end-user feedback?

What about GNOME software vendors not working within the 6-month cycle at all?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :

> It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape 
> was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any 
> kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application.
> 
> That is the reason why I had to revert the "icon in button" and "icon in 
> menu" on Mandriva Linux 2010.

Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
give for something so easily fixable.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Stef Walter]

Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not
> to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop?

+1

Stef

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Frederic Crozat]

Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:

While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of
being able to rely on icons.

A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape.  Open the Path menu and
you have to read most of them to actually find "Division" where it used
to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the
difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon).


That's a bug in inkscape. If it _requires_ the icons to be useful or
usable, then it should force the icons to be visible in those menu
entries.

It would have broken the same way before if a user disabled icons in the
menus themselves through the GConf key.


It seems nobody was doing it before, so my guess people were happy with it.


Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything
that shows that having none at all is better?

That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a
speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite.


There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're
more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community
usability people.


What I find hard to understand is there was NO discussion about this on 
the usability mailing list.


A lot of those "UI discussions" seem to appear on various bugs, where 
people might not subscribed to and changes are done without any prior 
notification on usability list.



Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now.


It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape 
was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any 
kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application.


That is the reason why I had to revert the "icon in button" and "icon in 
menu" on Mandriva Linux 2010.


--
Frederic Crozat
Mandriva
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:
>> 2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens  
>>> wrote:
 What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
 settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
 Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it.
>>> Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled
>>> to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she
>>> doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems
>>> as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the
>>> only people who write.
>> So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
>> will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
>> deal with community.
>
> And you are attacking me because..? The only thing I did is point out
> a logic flow in the above statement ("loudest == majority").
>

Patryk, I am not attacking you. I am just explaining that people who
protest this change are also part of community.

And there are some reasoning - like it or not, loudest minority are
something you would like to deal with. Because they generate word of
mouth.

Cheers,
Peter.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2009/11/10 Andre Klapper :
> Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 17:00 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
>> So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
>> will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
>> deal with community.
>
> Thanks for being the true and only voice of the community.
> Maybe the majority doesn't want to be part of your community though.

I and other users who oppose the change are part of community. Maybe I
am not cool developer as you are (seriously, you guys rock, I don't
argue that), but I am doing support for GNOME and Ubuntu for three
years every day (Linux support for six years). I know what I am
talking about.

>> Smells like pushing a change no matter others think.
>
> I'm still looking for a project (except for elections in communist
> countries) that still exists and where changes are only applied in case
> of 100% agreement.
> Other classic I know from bug reports: "So you did research, but
> obviously you asked the wrong people, as you did not ask me!!!"

Well, I am not against developer decisions. They have to be made by
them (I agree it is not a democracy) and I see several reasonings as
valid behind removal of icons. However, I am only surprised that only
option to revert this change is gone. That's wrong in my opinion. I am
not asking you to agree with me or change back. I can launch Terminal
and issue gconf command, or do it in gconf-editor. I have no issues
with that. I just don't like situation when I have to do support and
have to tell user that in way to get back icons they have to launch
command line and run a command.

> Again, this decision was already announced and discussed at this list a
> few months ago. If you want to discuss $stuff, join the discussion early
> enough.
> Coming up with it again and again without providing new arguments
> definitely makes me (and developers) ignore this thread as I got other
> stuff to do than bikeshedding whether a gconf key to change the setting
> is enough or not...

No one will give you a new arguments. There have been some five mails
about this already. No other change have made such noise in this list.
This is indication that there is a part of community that doesn't buy
any reasoning behind this change. People doesn't understand this
reasoning.  If you think that it shouldn't be addressed - fine. I
think it should.

>> Google for 'PulseAudio Hate'
>
> Completely unrelated.

Completely related. Another grand change within free desktop with
polarized results. I love PA and it improves nicely with every
release. But it is still seriously broken for LOT of people. And it
keeps creating negative word of mouth for Ubuntu, Fedora, GNOME and
free software in general. I am worried about that. And I think you
should too.

Cheers and no hard feelings,
Peter.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Patryk Zawadzki]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:
> 2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens  wrote:
>>> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
>>> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
>>> Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it.
>> Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled
>> to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she
>> doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems
>> as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the
>> only people who write.
> So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
> will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
> deal with community.

And you are attacking me because..? The only thing I did is point out
a logic flow in the above statement ("loudest == majority").

-- 
Patryk Zawadzki
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Jud Craft]

> I didn't tell anyone to hack around it. There's a (bad) UI for reverting
> the change called gconf-editor. If it's not good enough, people can add
> features to gTweakUI or write their own.

I'm aware of gconf-editor.  But saying a user has to go mess with the
keys is pretty much a dumping ground for "we don't actually support
end-user customization of this item".

If you meant for the end-user to use it, it will be in the GUI itself.
 Removing it from the UI has taken away a sort of "legitimacy" that
the configuration option has - it's no longer part of the main
desktop.

This isn't horrible.  I think that removing the user-facing option
completely from the default desktop - or moving it to "third-party
configuration tweak status" - is a suboptimal idea.  This was one
preference that wasn't going to break the bank.  [Or maybe I'm
pre-biased.  Certainly I have no idea how to "change" the toolbar in
OS X - likely it's not possible.  So I can definitely live with it].
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Andreas Proschofsky]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 15:39 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:

> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
> Except ~5 devs, 

I really don't think making some imaginary stats up is going to help the
discussion. I for one am of this mysterious species called "user" and
very happy with the change, as I find it to be cleaner and less
distracting.

Besides that I really doubt the part about a majority of users being
against it, and even if I can't add some "objective" facts at least I
can offer a different view: As some of you might know I'm a journalist
covering Linux stuff and so I've written quite a few pieces where I
mentioned this change in detail. But even though we have a very vocal
community (and people are more likely to complain than to praise in
online-forums) the icon removal was discussed only very very briefly.
For instance recently we ran a piece about Ubuntu 9.10 and about
problems people are seeing with it and not a single one out of 245
postings even mentioned the icon change.

So while all this might be a very important and heated discussion for
some who don't like the new default setting (or are generally against
changes), claiming that the majority of users is against it is just
making things up.

bye
Andreas

-- 
Andreas Proschofsky
Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org
Twitter: @suka_hiroaki
Identi.ca: @suka 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Andre Klapper]

Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 17:00 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
> So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
> will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
> deal with community.

Thanks for being the true and only voice of the community.
Maybe the majority doesn't want to be part of your community though.

> Smells like pushing a change no matter others think.

I'm still looking for a project (except for elections in communist
countries) that still exists and where changes are only applied in case
of 100% agreement.
Other classic I know from bug reports: "So you did research, but
obviously you asked the wrong people, as you did not ask me!!!"

Again, this decision was already announced and discussed at this list a
few months ago. If you want to discuss $stuff, join the discussion early
enough.
Coming up with it again and again without providing new arguments
definitely makes me (and developers) ignore this thread as I got other
stuff to do than bikeshedding whether a gconf key to change the setting
is enough or not...

> Google for 'PulseAudio Hate'

Completely unrelated.

andre
-- 
 mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed
 http://www.iomc.de/  | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:36 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> > I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that "it's
> > changed". Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
> > achieved with status quo.
> >
> > Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
> > it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now.
> 
> And the new change is not merely all:  apparently you're also taking
> away the capability to change back.

No, we're taking away one of the UIs for it. Read the beginning of the
thread again.

> Change is a lot easier to push when you can offer a comfort zone to
> temporarily revert it.  It's not like icon and toolbar style are
> mission-critical-required to be locked in stone, so removing the
> ability to change back was arguably excessive.
> 
> Unless casual users are going to band together and make their own
> tweak program, or alter GConf keys, or some nonsense like that.  I'm
> fine with the new style, but I find that assumption ("we can remove
> that, and tell users to just hack around us if they don't like it!") a
> little ridiculous.

I didn't tell anyone to hack around it. There's a (bad) UI for reverting
the change called gconf-editor. If it's not good enough, people can add
features to gTweakUI or write their own.

At the end of the day, we're making the changes for the majority of
users. And I'm pretty sure those who want to find their icons back for
menu items, etc. will be able to find a way to change it back without us
having to compromise for them.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Emmanuele Bassi]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> 2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens  
> > wrote:
> >> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
> >> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
> >> Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it.
> >
> > Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled
> > to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she
> > doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems
> > as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the
> > only people who write.
> >
> 
> So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
> will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
> deal with community.

so, let me get this straight: the proper way to deal with a community is
to heed to the wishes of a vocal minority?

> Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
> dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.

I propose a Lennart's Law, similar to Godwin's: as soon as PulseAudio is
mentioned in a thread then the person mentioning it lost the argument.

wth has PulseAudio to do with this?

>  We don't
> that luxury to waste users just because we think what we do is
> technically right.

who's "we"?

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Andre Klapper]

Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 16:53 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
> Bastien, I would like to have references like bugzilla bug numbers and
> some study about impact of this decision. 

This has all been posted on this list already and repeating doesn't make
sense. Search the archives, please.

andre
-- 
 mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed
 http://www.iomc.de/  | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens  wrote:
>> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
>> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
>> Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it.
>
> Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled
> to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she
> doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems
> as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the
> only people who write.
>

So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
deal with community.

And no one asks to revert. I was ok about lack of icons till there was
easy to find and easy to use option to turn it back. No there are
plans to eliminate this option. Smells like pushing a change no matter
others think.

Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases. We don't
that luxury to waste users just because we think what we do is
technically right.

Cheers,
Peter.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2009/11/10 Bastien Nocera :
> The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given
> on how to get the icons back.
>

Bastien, I would like to have references like bugzilla bug numbers and
some study about impact of this decision. And I agree with rest that
asking people to mess with gconf or implement it in some thirty party
tool (NOT as default) is no go. It is not encryption for VNC or some
extra setting for working with dual head. This affects everyone.

So far most of discussion about this issue has been something like 'we
did it because we like it that way'. That's not a way to get
wide-spread support for such major change in user interface. Also so
far I haven't got direct answer how iconless menus helps me to find
things speedily.

Cheers,
Peter.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Patryk Zawadzki]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens  wrote:
> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
> Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it.

Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled
to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she
doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems
as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the
only people who write.

-- 
Patryk Zawadzki
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

RE: Appearance properties

[Uros Nedic]

General anger is not something which need to be translated.I, for example, want 
all best to GNOME and to this community.But, as far as I could see, some things 
go in wrong way andI just would like to point on that.
I'm more than ready to help to improve the things and alsoI want to become one 
of significant contributors, but firstI do not know how many developers GNOME 
have and itsresponsibilities, I do not know how whole life-cycle goes,etc. I 
mean I know something but not on satisfying levelto be able to develop.
Uros


---
"Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men
 is primarily based on mutual trust and only
 secondarily on institutions such as courts of
 justice and police."

 - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)



> Subject: Re: Appearance properties
> From: ru...@savanne.be
> To: had...@hadess.net
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:34:40 +0100
> CC: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> 
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > > > Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything
> > > > that shows that having none at all is better? 
> > > That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a
> > > speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite.
> > 
> > There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're
> > more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community
> > usability people.
> > 
> > I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that "it's
> > changed". Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
> > achieved with status quo.
> > 
> > Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
> > it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now.
> 
> 
> Bastien, please don't translate this thread into general anger. Atleast
> for me, it's not the case. I can certainly see the upside of it in a lot
> of places. As such I'm not asking for a revert, I just wanted to note
> that going from one end of the extreme all the way to the other feels
> weird at some places.
> 
> But I do welcome the change (and I highly respect our usability people,
> consider this a feedback loop, not an attack).
> 
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
  
_
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_1:092010___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Xavier Claessens]

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > > While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
> > > there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
> > > usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of
> > > being able to rely on icons.
> > A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape.  Open the Path menu and
> > you have to read most of them to actually find "Division" where it used
> > to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the
> > difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon).
> 
> That's a bug in inkscape. If it _requires_ the icons to be useful or
> usable, then it should force the icons to be visible in those menu
> entries.
> 
> It would have broken the same way before if a user disabled icons in the
> menus themselves through the GConf key.
> 
> > > Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything
> > > that shows that having none at all is better? 
> > That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a
> > speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite.
> 
> There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're
> more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community
> usability people.
> 
> I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that "it's
> changed". Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
> achieved with status quo.
> 
> Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
> it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now.

Actually I don't want to complain here because it changed. I'm against
but I can accept...

What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it. So the minimum required is a
UI to tweak that... in *official* distribution, not some package totally
unmaintained and unknown that nobody will ever install.

Xavier Claessens.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Jud Craft]

> I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that "it's
> changed". Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
> achieved with status quo.
>
> Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
> it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now.

And the new change is not merely all:  apparently you're also taking
away the capability to change back.

Change is a lot easier to push when you can offer a comfort zone to
temporarily revert it.  It's not like icon and toolbar style are
mission-critical-required to be locked in stone, so removing the
ability to change back was arguably excessive.

Unless casual users are going to band together and make their own
tweak program, or alter GConf keys, or some nonsense like that.  I'm
fine with the new style, but I find that assumption ("we can remove
that, and tell users to just hack around us if they don't like it!") a
little ridiculous.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Ruben Vermeersch]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > > Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything
> > > that shows that having none at all is better? 
> > That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a
> > speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite.
> 
> There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're
> more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community
> usability people.
> 
> I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that "it's
> changed". Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
> achieved with status quo.
> 
> Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
> it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now.


Bastien, please don't translate this thread into general anger. Atleast
for me, it's not the case. I can certainly see the upside of it in a lot
of places. As such I'm not asking for a revert, I just wanted to note
that going from one end of the extreme all the way to the other feels
weird at some places.

But I do welcome the change (and I highly respect our usability people,
consider this a feedback loop, not an attack).


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
> > there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
> > usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of
> > being able to rely on icons.
> A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape.  Open the Path menu and
> you have to read most of them to actually find "Division" where it used
> to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the
> difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon).

That's a bug in inkscape. If it _requires_ the icons to be useful or
usable, then it should force the icons to be visible in those menu
entries.

It would have broken the same way before if a user disabled icons in the
menus themselves through the GConf key.

> > Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything
> > that shows that having none at all is better? 
> That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a
> speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite.

There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're
more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community
usability people.

I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that "it's
changed". Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
achieved with status quo.

Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Frederic Peters]

Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
> > there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
> > usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of
> > being able to rely on icons.
> A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape.  Open the Path menu and
> you have to read most of them to actually find "Division" where it used
> to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the
> difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon).

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589584 was a bug report
against eog, to always show icon for rotate/flip menu items, the same
rationale could be applied to many Inkscape menu items.

I quote Andreas in the bug report :

  (...) but I think it's one of those cases that falls under " or if
  it makes the items in that menu segment very much more recognizable."
  as rotate clockwise could need some visualization in order to show
  what it means


Cheers,

Frederic
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:46 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 13:27 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> > > > It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
> > > > option through the appearance capplet.
> > > 
> > > I think you may be mistaken.  I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
> > > the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the
> > > Interface options mentioned above have been removed.
> > 
> > That's because Fedora is ahead of upstream :)
> > 
> > Just like we disabled the icons and fixed a number of apps before this
> > got upstream.
> 
> Obviously they missed inkscape...

Possibly. Most of us don't use inkscape on a regular basis. We fixed
most of what's in the GNOME desktop.

>  But since we don't have icons I guess
> inkscape is not useful anymore...

Superb attitude, and wrong statement as well.

We still have icons for applications, people and locations (on top of my
head).

Discussion was there:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557469
if you want to read up before making more of a fuss.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Pierre-Luc Beaudoin]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
> there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
> usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of
> being able to rely on icons.
A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape.  Open the Path menu and
you have to read most of them to actually find "Division" where it used
to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the
difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon).

> Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything
> that shows that having none at all is better? 
That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a
speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite.

Pierre-Luc


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Xavier Claessens]

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 13:27 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> > > It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
> > > option through the appearance capplet.
> > 
> > I think you may be mistaken.  I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
> > the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the
> > Interface options mentioned above have been removed.
> 
> That's because Fedora is ahead of upstream :)
> 
> Just like we disabled the icons and fixed a number of apps before this
> got upstream.

Obviously they missed inkscape... But since we don't have icons I guess
inkscape is not useful anymore...

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> > It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
> > option through the appearance capplet.
> 
> I think you may be mistaken.  I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
> the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the
> Interface options mentioned above have been removed.

That's because Fedora is ahead of upstream :)

Just like we disabled the icons and fixed a number of apps before this
got upstream.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Jud Craft  wrote:
>> It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
>> option through the appearance capplet.
>
> I think you may be mistaken.  I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
> the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the
> Interface options mentioned above have been removed.

That is because we have removed it in Fedora before it was removed upstream.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Jud Craft]

> It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
> option through the appearance capplet.

I think you may be mistaken.  I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the
Interface options mentioned above have been removed.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Thomas Wood]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:01 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> I actually enjoy most of the new changes (I like the simpler menus),
> but I miss being able to change the toolbar style.  The 2.28
> text-beside is nice, but I prefer the old text-under.  Is that really
> such a forbidden use case? 

It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
option through the appearance capplet.

In 2.30, if you still want to change this option, you can open
gconf-editor, navigate to the /desktop/gnome/interface/toolbar_style key
and set it to the value you want ("both").

Regards,

Thomas

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Jud Craft]

> you're missing the point: the option already exists in GConf. all that
> is needed is a UI tweak utility that can be optionally installed.

Not sure I understand the discussion here.  GNOME -had- UI to tweak
this option, and suddenly decided not to support configuring it in the
main desktop.

I actually enjoy most of the new changes (I like the simpler menus),
but I miss being able to change the toolbar style.  The 2.28
text-beside is nice, but I prefer the old text-under.  Is that really
such a forbidden use case?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

RE: Appearance properties

[Emmanuele Bassi]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:37 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote:
> I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basically
> need one quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want
> icons'
> or 'we don't want them'. Latter could be default if you like. If this
> community is not able to implement this simple thing that means that
> something is going very bad here.

you're missing the point: the option already exists in GConf. all that
is needed is a UI tweak utility that can be optionally installed.

you are part of "this community" too: write a patch for gTweakUI if you
want to. the project is available here:

  http://gtweakui.sourceforge.net/

you can even start something new or fork the project if you feel
adventurous.

what you shouldn't do is come here and tell people what to do.

> Beside the fact that GNOME started to be less and less effective
> than KDE and as time pass we have to import many of technologies
> from them.

this has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

RE: Appearance properties

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:37 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote:
> I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basically
> need one quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want
> icons'
> or 'we don't want them'. Latter could be default if you like. If this
> community is not able to implement this simple thing that means that
> something is going very bad here.

What's wrong is a community that's devoid of the powers and will to make
changes that in the long run will be beneficial.

> Beside the fact that GNOME started to be less and less effective
> than KDE and as time pass we have to import many of technologies
> from them.

That's a plain wrong statement, and one that doesn't have anything to do
with the discussion at hand.


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

RE: Appearance properties

[Uros Nedic]

I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basicallyneed one 
quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want icons'or 'we don't want 
them'. Latter could be default if you like. If thiscommunity is not able to 
implement this simple thing that means thatsomething is going very bad here.
Beside the fact that GNOME started to be less and less effectivethan KDE and as 
time pass we have to import many of technologiesfrom them.
Let's we turn the page!
Uros


---
"Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men
 is primarily based on mutual trust and only
 secondarily on institutions such as courts of
 justice and police."

 - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)



> Subject: Re: RE: Appearance properties
> From: eba...@gmail.com
> To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:35:53 +
> 
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:50 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> 
> > > A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low
> > > importance preferences.
> > > 
> > > The Appearance capplet includes three sections. "Background" is probably
> > > most used, "Font" is of high importance (for accessibility) and "Theme"
> > > is probably a medium priority preference.
> > 
> > I think, but could be wrong, that tab was indeed useless... until the
> > sane default changed and became unusable/ugly...
> 
> *for you*.
> 
> personally, I like the current default very much.
> 
> >  now it is really useful
> > to get back to previous configuration, so the interface tab is now
> > really important.
> 
> if it really is that important, fix gTweakUI and use that to restore
> your preferred setting.
> 
> gnome-appearance-capplet should not be the kitchen sink.
> 
> ciao,
>  Emmanuele.
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
  
_
Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from 
Hotmail®.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_4:092009___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: RE: Appearance properties

[Emmanuele Bassi]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:50 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:

> > A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low
> > importance preferences.
> > 
> > The Appearance capplet includes three sections. "Background" is probably
> > most used, "Font" is of high importance (for accessibility) and "Theme"
> > is probably a medium priority preference.
> 
> I think, but could be wrong, that tab was indeed useless... until the
> sane default changed and became unusable/ugly...

*for you*.

personally, I like the current default very much.

>  now it is really useful
> to get back to previous configuration, so the interface tab is now
> really important.

if it really is that important, fix gTweakUI and use that to restore
your preferred setting.

gnome-appearance-capplet should not be the kitchen sink.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:08 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > > Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> > > > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > > > > So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> > > > > I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug:
> > > > 
> > > > I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a
> > > > way, then it should be done through an appropriate "tweaks" application.
> > > > The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the
> > > > majority of users.
> > > 
> > > Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not
> > > to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop?
> > > 
> > > The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is
> > > highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I
> > > would like wider acceptance before.
> > > 
> > > I definitely give a -1, but if I'm alone then ignore me ;)
> > 
> > You're confusing this place for a democracy :)
> > 
> > We might as well enable Bugzilla voting otherwise.
> > 
> > The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given
> > on how to get the icons back.
> 
> Actually I started this thread because starting from today, GNOME does
> not have any way to get icons back anymore. gconf-editor is not
> considered a "tweak application" ;-)

That's because when we mentioned the "tweak application" in the past, we
postponed decisions until somebody wrote that elusive application.
Nobody did. So we remove the functionality, and if you care enough,
you'll write that tweak application.

See this on how you could implement it:
http://fagonfoss.com/blog/?p=414

Cheers

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Xavier Claessens]

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> > > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > > > So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> > > > I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. 
> > > 
> > > Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug:
> > > 
> > > I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a
> > > way, then it should be done through an appropriate "tweaks" application.
> > > The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the
> > > majority of users.
> > 
> > Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not
> > to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop?
> > 
> > The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is
> > highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I
> > would like wider acceptance before.
> > 
> > I definitely give a -1, but if I'm alone then ignore me ;)
> 
> You're confusing this place for a democracy :)
> 
> We might as well enable Bugzilla voting otherwise.
> 
> The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given
> on how to get the icons back.

Actually I started this thread because starting from today, GNOME does
not have any way to get icons back anymore. gconf-editor is not
considered a "tweak application" ;-)

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Bastien Nocera]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > > So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> > > I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. 
> > 
> > Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug:
> > 
> > I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a
> > way, then it should be done through an appropriate "tweaks" application.
> > The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the
> > majority of users.
> 
> Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not
> to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop?
> 
> The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is
> highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I
> would like wider acceptance before.
> 
> I definitely give a -1, but if I'm alone then ignore me ;)

You're confusing this place for a democracy :)

We might as well enable Bugzilla voting otherwise.

The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given
on how to get the icons back.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: RE: Appearance properties

[Xavier Claessens]

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:24 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:14 +0100, Olivier Le Thanh Duong wrote:
> > I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved
> > to a tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak
> > application?
> 
> A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low
> importance preferences.
> 
> The Appearance capplet includes three sections. "Background" is probably
> most used, "Font" is of high importance (for accessibility) and "Theme"
> is probably a medium priority preference.

I think, but could be wrong, that tab was indeed useless... until the
sane default changed and became unusable/ugly... now it is really useful
to get back to previous configuration, so the interface tab is now
really important.

Xavier Claessens.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Xavier Claessens]

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> > I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. 
> 
> Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug:
> 
> I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a
> way, then it should be done through an appropriate "tweaks" application.
> The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the
> majority of users.

Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not
to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop?

The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is
highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I
would like wider acceptance before.

I definitely give a -1, but if I'm alone then ignore me ;)

Xavier Claessens.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: RE: Appearance properties

[Thomas Wood]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:14 +0100, Olivier Le Thanh Duong wrote:
> I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved
> to a tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak
> application?

A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low
importance preferences.

The Appearance capplet includes three sections. "Background" is probably
most used, "Font" is of high importance (for accessibility) and "Theme"
is probably a medium priority preference.

Regards,

Thomas

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Thomas Wood]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. 

Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug:

I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a
way, then it should be done through an appropriate "tweaks" application.
The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the
majority of users.

Please don't revert the status of bugs to "unconfirmed". The bug status
is "fixed" since the issue reported in the bug has been fixed. 

Regards,

Thomas


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: RE: Appearance properties

[Olivier Le Thanh Duong]

I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved to a
tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak application?

I don't really see why we should disperse our efforts in two applications
with the same purpose and it only make things more confusing for the users

On Nov 10, 2009 10:39 AM, "Jean Bréfort" 
wrote:

+1

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:28 +0100, Uros Nedic a écrit :

> I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is that >
developers should enable in Appea...
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Appearance properties

[Ruben Vermeersch]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop:
> 1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below.
> 2) Icons got removed from menus.
> 3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs.
> 
> 1 and 2 were still configurable from gnome-appearance-properties, 3 was
> not possible to change (Bug #595341).
> 
> And now the whole interface tab was dropped. Making 1, 2 and 3 not
> configurable anymore (Bug #592756).
> 
> Am I the only one to think something really insane is happening? It
> seems all those decisions are taken by a few developers that like
> that... This impact the whole desktop and is very visible to all users,
> so I think the discussion should be wider. That's why I'm posting here.
> 
> So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I
> would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.


While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of
being able to rely on icons.

Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything that
shows that having none at all is better?

  Ruben

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

RE: Appearance properties

[Jean Bréfort]

+1

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:28 +0100, Uros Nedic a écrit :
> I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is that
> developers should enable in Appearance menu some configuration
> options regarding this issue.
> 
> 
> It is not so hard to implement.
> 
> 
> Uros
> 
> 
> ---
> "Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men
>  is primarily based on mutual trust and only
>  secondarily on institutions such as courts of
>  justice and police."
> 
>  - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
> 
> 
> 
> > Subject: Appearance properties
> > From: xclae...@gmail.com
> > To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:18:36 +0100
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop:
> > 1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below.
> > 2) Icons got removed from menus.
> > 3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs.
> > 
> > 1 and 2 were still configurable from gnome-appearance-properties, 3
> was
> > not possible to change (Bug #595341).
> > 
> > And now the whole interface tab was dropped. Making 1, 2 and 3 not
> > configurable anymore (Bug #592756).
> > 
> > Am I the only one to think something really insane is happening? It
> > seems all those decisions are taken by a few developers that like
> > that... This impact the whole desktop and is very visible to all
> users,
> > so I think the discussion should be wider. That's why I'm posting
> here.
> > 
> > So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your
> opinion! I
> > would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Xavier Claessens.
> > 
> > ___
> > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> 
> 
> 
> __
> Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates,
> right from Hotmail®.
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

RE: Appearance properties

[Uros Nedic]

I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is thatdevelopers should 
enable in Appearance menu some configurationoptions regarding this issue.
It is not so hard to implement.
Uros


---
"Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men
 is primarily based on mutual trust and only
 secondarily on institutions such as courts of
 justice and police."

 - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)



> Subject: Appearance properties
> From: xclae...@gmail.com
> To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:18:36 +0100
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop:
> 1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below.
> 2) Icons got removed from menus.
> 3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs.
> 
> 1 and 2 were still configurable from gnome-appearance-properties, 3 was
> not possible to change (Bug #595341).
> 
> And now the whole interface tab was dropped. Making 1, 2 and 3 not
> configurable anymore (Bug #592756).
> 
> Am I the only one to think something really insane is happening? It
> seems all those decisions are taken by a few developers that like
> that... This impact the whole desktop and is very visible to all users,
> so I think the discussion should be wider. That's why I'm posting here.
> 
> So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I
> would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
> 
> Regards,
> Xavier Claessens.
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
  
_
Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from 
Hotmail®.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_4:092009___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list