Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 23:38 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Smart taskbar (similar to W7 or using some new ideas) could be next to > that. For instance, hovering over an item in the taskbar could display the current workspace with windows belonging to the task highlighted. This way, the user would not only see the windows that belong to the task (like in W7), but would also see/select them based on their shape, size and position (proportionally, of course). So, it's not like there are no other ways of doing things. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Why not open Activities at start?
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 12:30 +0200, David Prieto wrote: > I've noticed that the Activities overlay opens automatically whenever > you close all windows from a workspace - which actually makes a lot of > sense, because in order to do anything you need to open it anyway. My > doubt is, why doesn't it open automatically when the computer starts, > too? Isn't it the same situation? With the user facing an empty > desktop without anything to interact with? This is a good idea. I posted something similar a while ago about being able to resume your work easily (more in the context of Zeitgeist, but you get the idea): http://people.gnome.org/~federico/news-2009-10.html#08 Federico ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I have precisely zero experience with Macs, but I read quite a lot of > articles specifically bemoaning the performance of early lower-end OS > X-running systems, particularly graphical performance, so I'm not sure > this example is worth quite as much as you think. I owned an eMac. For the time, it was OK. And graphics (in terms of window management) certainly didn't lag. PS. I hated the stupid one button mouse and global top menu, but that's a different thing altogether. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > It doesn't do applications 'simultaneously'; they're a different part > of the overview that you toggle. When you go to applications, windows > and workspaces go away. So, you can go to applications directly from the normal view? No. You have to start the kitchen sink and get expose animation you never asked for first. Then you get to see the apps, after you clicked on them. So, why not just click on them in the first place? -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 08:29 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Designing the Shell not in the way it would work best but in order to > > work with extremely limited (by modern standards) graphics drivers > > comes under 'severely cripple the Shell', in my chart. > > What is "best"? For one person, this may be "consistent look across all > systems." For another "maximum number of animations per minute of use." > I'm leaning towards the former. :-) > > Seriously for a second, if Apple managed to have a decent looking and > behaving desktop on an eMac (and I said before, I'm no big fan of OS X), > with no hardware acceleration whatsoever and so many years ago, things > can be done so that the fallback _resembles_ the new mode. It doesn't > have to be exactly the same, but at least similar. I have precisely zero experience with Macs, but I read quite a lot of articles specifically bemoaning the performance of early lower-end OS X-running systems, particularly graphical performance, so I'm not sure this example is worth quite as much as you think. > And this is another problem with the overview. 3D is probably required > to all all those animations all the time, even when user really wants to > do something else. I don't really have the same perception you do here. Shell certainly doesn't look like an attempt to use as many animations as possible, to me; it uses them quite sparingly, really. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Why wouldn't you just use alt-tab? (Mind you, I use alt-tab for just > about everything.) I actually don't have a problem with lost windows at all. My windows rarely overlap (i.e. I actually do use workspaces). I keep wondering, why do I have to get a window finding tool (expose) and its animation when I never asked for one? -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 08:20 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > And instead of one operation to see all the thumbnails (overview) you > > have to mouse over each one, one at a time, to see each thumbnail, one > > at a time. > > However, if you are looking for a particular lost window (which is > mostly the case - nobody says: "oh, let's see which thing would be nice > to do next among all the lost windows" - they already know what they'd > like to do, they just can't find the window to do it), then this is > actually better. Because you don't have to see all the other lost > windows, just the one of the app you're looking for. Why wouldn't you just use alt-tab? (Mind you, I use alt-tab for just about everything.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 08:16 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 16:27 +0200, David Prieto wrote: > > The only thing I can ask from you is, please don't try to > > disguise your opinions as facts. > > Of course everything we say here is IMHO or IMNSHO. > > However, here is one undisputed fact: overview does workspaces, > applications, windows and expose, simultaneously. > > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/everything_but_the_kitchen_sink It doesn't do applications 'simultaneously'; they're a different part of the overview that you toggle. When you go to applications, windows and workspaces go away. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Designing the Shell not in the way it would work best but in order to > work with extremely limited (by modern standards) graphics drivers > comes under 'severely cripple the Shell', in my chart. What is "best"? For one person, this may be "consistent look across all systems." For another "maximum number of animations per minute of use." I'm leaning towards the former. :-) Seriously for a second, if Apple managed to have a decent looking and behaving desktop on an eMac (and I said before, I'm no big fan of OS X), with no hardware acceleration whatsoever and so many years ago, things can be done so that the fallback _resembles_ the new mode. It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but at least similar. And this is another problem with the overview. 3D is probably required to all all those animations all the time, even when user really wants to do something else. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > And instead of one operation to see all the thumbnails (overview) you > have to mouse over each one, one at a time, to see each thumbnail, one > at a time. However, if you are looking for a particular lost window (which is mostly the case - nobody says: "oh, let's see which thing would be nice to do next among all the lost windows" - they already know what they'd like to do, they just can't find the window to do it), then this is actually better. Because you don't have to see all the other lost windows, just the one of the app you're looking for. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 16:27 +0200, David Prieto wrote: > The only thing I can ask from you is, please don't try to > disguise your opinions as facts. Of course everything we say here is IMHO or IMNSHO. However, here is one undisputed fact: overview does workspaces, applications, windows and expose, simultaneously. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/everything_but_the_kitchen_sink -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell?
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:42 -0400, G. Michael Carter wrote: > In this case it doesn't. I get the option "LOGOFF" and that's it. > (With an unhappy computer icon in the centre)Bottom line I > couldn't see the fallback get the attention that a non-3d session > would so would be better to upgrade the hardware or switch to > something like KDE, XFCE, or LXDE. > > > I just needed that confirmation so I could layout my parents options. My 'should' was a request to the developers :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Modification of the extensions wiki page
Hi, After a short discussion with Giovanni, I took the liberty of modifying the page http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Extensions, to include per-extension documentation, and a few sexy screenshots. I'll fill the alternate-tab and auto-move-windows pages tomorrow. Cheers, Thomas ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:56:15AM -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > Design decisions don't really occur in a mailing list. There is just too > > much noise when we do that. You need to put in a bug and discuss it > within > > the context of bugzilla. Discussing it here will unlikely get you > anywhere. > > Design is done where the designers hang out; that is #gnome-design. > > Bugzilla is the wrong place. It is not meant for discussions, sole > purpose is bug tracking and bug fixing. > > I stand corrected.. thanks, Olav. sri ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:56:15AM -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > Design decisions don't really occur in a mailing list. There is just too > much noise when we do that. You need to put in a bug and discuss it within > the context of bugzilla. Discussing it here will unlikely get you anywhere. Design is done where the designers hang out; that is #gnome-design. Bugzilla is the wrong place. It is not meant for discussions, sole purpose is bug tracking and bug fixing. Mailing lists attract a lot of noise. Just read the usability archives. Everyones wants something different and stuff often conflicts. -- Regards, Olav ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 13:50 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:10 -0400, G. Michael Carter wrote: > > > Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome > shell? > > > > > > "gnome-shell isn't expected to work on r100 (or r200) you need >= r300 > for > > > radeon cards for it to work." > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679264 > > > > Confirmed. > > > > (It's not really a question of features, but these cards just don't have > > enough power to give a decent experience with GNOME Shell, so > > we don't want to spend the considerable amount of time necessary to > > debug the drivers and get them working with GNOME Shell.) > > In this case, the fallback detection should detect such chips and run > the fallback mode on them; trying to run Shell and giving a poor > experience is not a good idea. > In this case it doesn't. I get the option "LOGOFF" and that's it. (With an unhappy computer icon in the centre)Bottom line I couldn't see the fallback get the attention that a non-3d session would so would be better to upgrade the hardware or switch to something like KDE, XFCE, or LXDE. I just needed that confirmation so I could layout my parents options. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell?
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 13:50 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:10 -0400, G. Michael Carter wrote: > > Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell? > > > > "gnome-shell isn't expected to work on r100 (or r200) you need >= r300 for > > radeon cards for it to work." > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679264 > > Confirmed. > > (It's not really a question of features, but these cards just don't have > enough power to give a decent experience with GNOME Shell, so > we don't want to spend the considerable amount of time necessary to > debug the drivers and get them working with GNOME Shell.) In this case, the fallback detection should detect such chips and run the fallback mode on them; trying to run Shell and giving a poor experience is not a good idea. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell?
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:10 -0400, G. Michael Carter wrote: > Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell? > > "gnome-shell isn't expected to work on r100 (or r200) you need >= r300 for > radeon cards for it to work." > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679264 Confirmed. (It's not really a question of features, but these cards just don't have enough power to give a decent experience with GNOME Shell, so we don't want to spend the considerable amount of time necessary to debug the drivers and get them working with GNOME Shell.) - Owen ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Diego Fernandez wrote: > > Alright I might have been a bit harsh, but I have seen many points > argued with very solid evidence and even a proposal of how to fix > them; however, I have not seen a single one accepted on the list. > Maybe you have to keep up with more than just the mailing list to > figure out what ideas get adopted and which don't, so I could be > wrong. > > Design decisions don't really occur in a mailing list. There is just too much noise when we do that. You need to put in a bug and discuss it within the context of bugzilla. Discussing it here will unlikely get you anywhere. > Don't get me wrong, I have good wishes for the Gnome project. I tried > to make some suggestions and ask for certain functionality a while > back but never even got a reply. I just don't have the time and > energy to be running around trying to figure out where it is I need to > make suggestions, who I need to talk to, or what I need to do to try > to get the usability I'd like. Since I'm not at the level of > developing extensions or patches, I'm stuck just waiting to see what > happens... Until then I'll just follow this list and stick with other > WMs which give me more control over how I use my desktop. That's what > Linux is all about anyway, freedom and choice. > > Diego, a mailing list is just a poor place to discuss it. You'll notice the any number of threads that we have talked about features and bugs that go unanswered. Devs only have a limited time to peruse these threads, but they do look at bugzilla. Case in point, I have several bugs that I put in for multi-monitor features/bugs. They were all worked on by Alex, all properly discussed with history. It can be done. Just remember that in a Free Software project things go at a certain pace and you need to go through the proper channels. Most discussions on this mailing list is between users/app developers/etc. As for extensions and what not.. it's a bit challenging right now, but you don't need to be technical to make a case for a feature or bug. Make the case in bugzilla and with some data to back it up and possibly someone will take an interest and try to implement it. sri > Sorry for the disruption of the thread, and best wishes to all. > > > it's not a disruption if it turns into a learning opportunity. sri > -- > Diego Fernandez - 爱国 > ___ > gnome-shell-list mailing list > gnome-shell-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list > ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Sorry to be offtopic. On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 03:56 -0400, Diego Fernandez wrote: >> If you've kept up at all with this mailing list, you'll come to >> realize that the developers have a reason (which they believe to be >> absolutely right) for every single change. Nobody's opinion is going >> to change those decisions as they are pretty much dead set on them. > > This is flamebait. Decisions and designs can be and have been changed > all the way through the process. Lately a lot of times the discussion > has been punted to 3.2 because 3.0 is frozen, which isn't the same thing > at all: it's a release process thing (and an entirely sane one), nothing > to do with being convinced the decision is irreversibly perfect. You > don't make major changes after code freeze. Alright I might have been a bit harsh, but I have seen many points argued with very solid evidence and even a proposal of how to fix them; however, I have not seen a single one accepted on the list. Maybe you have to keep up with more than just the mailing list to figure out what ideas get adopted and which don't, so I could be wrong. Don't get me wrong, I have good wishes for the Gnome project. I tried to make some suggestions and ask for certain functionality a while back but never even got a reply. I just don't have the time and energy to be running around trying to figure out where it is I need to make suggestions, who I need to talk to, or what I need to do to try to get the usability I'd like. Since I'm not at the level of developing extensions or patches, I'm stuck just waiting to see what happens... Until then I'll just follow this list and stick with other WMs which give me more control over how I use my desktop. That's what Linux is all about anyway, freedom and choice. Sorry for the disruption of the thread, and best wishes to all. -- Diego Fernandez - 爱国 ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell?
Can I get confirmation that r100 and r200 will not work with gnome shell? "gnome-shell isn't expected to work on r100 (or r200) you need >= r300 for radeon cards for it to work." https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679264 ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
2011/4/26 David Prieto : > Florian, could you please link a screencast? Never tried expose on KDE or > OSX. It's quite hard to find one just presenting the expose feature. In this one there's quite much moving windows and using the workspace switcher (handling 4 workspaces each with expose). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XXEub2fJOg At 2:08 there are two windows partially overlapping and you see how their relative size and position is still recognizable in the expose. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 13:38 +0200, David Prieto wrote: > Bojan, > > Somewhat. > > In Gnome 2, each open app is a box on a taskbar. In Windows 7, > that box > also has window representations once you get over it, so you > can see > what is in each window. So, that's visually different. > > Yep. These representations (which I had totally forgotten, by the way) > are still tinier than Overview windows though, and they're still > placed regardless of the original window's location. My point stands. And instead of one operation to see all the thumbnails (overview) you have to mouse over each one, one at a time, to see each thumbnail, one at a time. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 18:02 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Another option may be: > > - design basic behaviour that is consistent Designing the Shell not in the way it would work best but in order to work with extremely limited (by modern standards) graphics drivers comes under 'severely cripple the Shell', in my chart. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 03:56 -0400, Diego Fernandez wrote: > If you've kept up at all with this mailing list, you'll come to > realize that the developers have a reason (which they believe to be > absolutely right) for every single change. Nobody's opinion is going > to change those decisions as they are pretty much dead set on them. This is flamebait. Decisions and designs can be and have been changed all the way through the process. Lately a lot of times the discussion has been punted to 3.2 because 3.0 is frozen, which isn't the same thing at all: it's a release process thing (and an entirely sane one), nothing to do with being convinced the decision is irreversibly perfect. You don't make major changes after code freeze. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Bojan, Bashing? One issue? No. > That's definitely my perception. > I listed quite a number of things that I genuinely believe are not helpful, > starting with the fact that new and fallback mode behave in entirely > different ways. That one thing I have to give you. I haven't used fallback mode though; I tried but, probably because of a Fedora bug, my system still uses the shell; so I don't know how different they really are. > The other issues are connected to overview, which in theory looks nice, but > is *really* just another kiitchen sink thing. > What you mean there is "in theory looks nice, but *in my opinion* is really just another kitchen sink thing". > Gnome 3 *should* have applications button on the left of the panel (which > should be kept on top, like now, with an option to disappear for folks who > like that) that opens dash ribbon and other app icons/menu/search below. > Workspace switcher *should* be next to it, but it *should* be enhanced so > that a click to current space opens a ribbon of workspaces where windows can > be moved around from space to space etc. Workspaces *should* be static. > Smart taskbar (similar to W7 or using some new ideas) could be next to that. > Expose *should* be available on request. > What you mean there is "based on personal preference, I *would like* Gnome 3 to have an Applications button"... and so on. The fact that the Overview looks like a kitchen sink *to you* does not make it an objective truth. The fact that it bothers *you* to get it when you want to launch an app does not make it an objective issue for everyone. The fact that *you* prefer static workspaces does not mean that everyone does. I'm not sure I want to keep discussing this, since obviously it's not taking us anywhere. You have a strong opinion, so do I, and we're obviously not going to agree. The only thing I can ask from you is, please don't try to disguise your opinions as facts. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Adding my 2 cents. I think the shell is good as is, because if you don't like something it's expandable via extensions. My only real concern is the Shell is great on systems it runs well on. What about those running a system with problems? ie: 1. I get about 2 frames for the animation of expose. So I don't really get the benefit of seeing where they go. 2. On a system that's overloaded or say something has a massive memory leak... How long does it take to bring up and animate the overview page? I know people have told me to log bugs... but some are still outstanding for over a year. With all that said I think the documentation for creating extensions should be really well documented, so anyone who says "I don't like" you can send them to the docs. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
--- Original message --- From: David Prieto That said, I think you're bashing it as a whole just based on that one pet peeve, and actively looking for stuff to hate. Need two steps to move the window to another location in a different workspace? Please. Bashing? One issue? No. I listed quite a number of things that I genuinely believe are not helpful, starting with the fact that new and fallback mode behave in entirely different ways. The other issues are connected to overview, which in theory looks nice, but is really just another kiitchen sink thing. Gnome 3 should have applications button on the left of the panel (which should be kept on top, like now, with an option to disappear for folks who like that) that opens dash ribbon and other app icons/menu/search below. Workspace switcher should be next to it, but it should be enhanced so that a click to current space opens a ribbon of workspaces where windows can be moved around from space to space etc. Workspaces should be static. Smart taskbar (similar to W7 or using some new ideas) could be next to that. Expose should be available on request. All of this could be done both with and without 3D, so that things look consistent. And it would be touchscreen friendly. So, I'm not just bashing. I think it's better to provide asked functionality when requested, instead of kitchen sink overview thing. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Is there a way to open a folder just with the mouse?
Vamsi, I realized you had only sent your reply to me, not to the list. I posted your screenshot to the Fedora Forums and it's raised some interest: http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1465358&postcount=327 Thought you might want to know. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Bojan, Gnome Shell gives the behavior of expose when no such behaviour is requested > or desired. I think that your problem is not about using the Overview for picking a window (you admit that it's better when the windows overlap, and that you can just click them when they don't) but about it being forced on you when you open an app (you can move a window to a different workspace via right-click, so we'll leave that one out). I respect that. I don't share it (at all) but hey, we all have opinions and that is a valid one. That said, I think you're bashing it as a whole just based on that one pet peeve, and actively looking for stuff to hate. Need two steps to move the window to another location in a different workspace? Please. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
--- Original message --- From: David Prieto To: bo...@rexursive.com Cc: awill...@redhat.com, gnome-shell-list@gnome.org Sent: 26.4.'11, 21:38 Bojan, Somewhat. In Gnome 2, each open app is a box on a taskbar. In Windows 7, that box also has window representations once you get over it, so you can see what is in each window. So, that's visually different. Yep. These representations (which I had totally forgotten, by the way) are still tinier than Overview windows though, and they're still placed regardless of the original window's location. My point stands. Not necessarily. Once you reposition windows with expose, they are not easily recognisable as the ones you are normally seeing in your original view. That's the problem with expose - that's why you only use it when you get in trouble with clutter. And yet, you don't seem to have any trouble using taskbars. That's curious considering that they have the same problem, only worse. The smart taskbar in Windows 7 and expose solve the same problem differently. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Gnome Shell gives the behavior of expose when no such behaviour is requested or desired. I use the word "problem" because it's what it seems to be for you. Please bear in mind that it's no problem from where I see it. Don't worry, I got that. :-) For me to go and pick a new application to run, I have to endure the expose, which I don't want/need to endure. If I get into the overview and there are no overlapping windows, I still see expose view. Which, again, I have to endure. If I want to move my windows to another workplace by dragging, I again have to endure expose. I am sorry that having to endure expose is so painful to you. I don't know what else to say, I'm afraid I can't relate. Look, the situation is simple: I never asked for expose, yet I'm exposed to unnecessary animation of it anyway. And I don't really know where my window will end up on another workspace, because I'll have to adjust it later. Sorry - not true. If you open the Overview and drag a window to another workspace, it's placed in the exact same position it was before. You do know where it will end up. OK, so the functionality of overview for moving windows is as good as right click, move to workspace. If there was no expose, one could move the window to _another_ location in a different workspace. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
--- Original message --- From: Florian Kuhnt I'm wondering if Bojan is against any way of expose implementation or just against the way it's implemented in gnome shell. I am not "against" anything. I just find the overview kitchen sink approach unreasonable. If I want to start an app, I get expose animation. If I want to drag a window to another workspace, I get expose animation. Unnecessary, annoying, not asked for and tiring to the eyes. If I want expose, I should be able to ask for it. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Florian, could you please link a screencast? Never tried expose on KDE or OSX. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
2011/4/26 David Prieto : >> For me to go and pick a new application to run, I have to endure the >> expose, which I don't want/need to endure. > >> If I get into the overview and there are no overlapping windows, I still >> see expose view. Which, again, I have to endure. > >> If I want to move my windows to another workplace by dragging, I again >> have to endure expose. > > I am sorry that having to endure expose is so painful to you. I don't know > what else to say, I'm afraid I can't relate. I'm wondering if Bojan is against any way of expose implementation or just against the way it's implemented in gnome shell. Bojan, do you know the way expose works in KDE4 or in newer Mac OSX? I don't really like the gnome-shell expose either - especially how it handles non-overlapping windows. With the patch I mentioned above activating overview feels more like "zooming-out" than "re-arranging windows in a grid": https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=615378 (once again) Has anyone been using such an Expose feature in KDE or OSX and recognized the difference? ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Named, persistent workspaces
Il giorno mar, 26/04/2011 alle 11.57 +0200, Elia Cogodi ha scritto: > Since the work towards 3.2 seems to have started... > > The behaviour currently presented in the shell (dynamically managed, > ad-hoc workspaces) is a great way to introduce even a casual user to > the concept of separate workspaces and solving the simple problems of > "I need more space for my windows" or "I don't want to see this window > right now". > As users become familiar with the concept, though, it's possible that > many of them will start thinking along different lines, where the > spaces are planned beforehand and consistently to organize their work > (a space for the editor, a space for a "research" browser window, one > for email and so on), in line with what power users of unixy OSs have > been doing since the dawn of time. > I remember even reading something from Federico about how one goes > when organizing a real work place, planning the work areas in advance. > And on the same tone, I've read of many expert users who can't really > come to terms with the totally dynamic management as it gets in the > way of their habits, and forces them to set up their spaces every > time. > > What's in a name? > --- > I propose to introduce an "advanced" workspace behaviour that is > practically transparent for the new users, but allows for growth in > usage pattern and would be more palatable to expert ones. It would > simply mean to distinguish between "named" workspaces and "anonymous" > or ad-hoc ones. > > Ad-hoc workspaces are the currently dynamically managed ones, and the default: > - an ad-hoc workspace is created by middle clicking a launcher or > dragging it to the empty space always available as last in the list > - an ad-hoc workspace is deleted as soon as no windows are present > > Additionally, you would be able to give a name label of your choice to > an existing ad-hoc space (thus defining its intended function): > - a named workspace is not scrapped when the last window is closed, > thus it's permanent until its name is cleared > - a named workspace is shown with its little name label superimposed > over the thumbnail in the workspace selector > - named workspaces are given numbered key shortcuts for fast switching > - the list of named workspaces and their shortcuts is a persistent > user setting, and they are all available right after a fresh login > - erasing a workspace name reverts it to ad-hoc behaviour. In > particular, erasing the name of an empty space scraps it What you propose already exists sort of. First of all, through GConf (or the preferences of the old workspace switcher applet) you can define workspace names, which are shown when you right click on a window and select "move to other workspace". Second, you can use the windowsNavigator extension, that assigns Alt+ to the Nth workspace. Third, you can use the auto-move-windows extension, that automatically places certain applications on predefined workspaces when they start, and stops collecting empty workspaces that are not at the end (making them static, that is). > Finally: > - DnD reordering of workspaces, both named and ad-hoc > > Pro: this simple change would accommodate most advanced use cases > without forcing complexity upon beginners. > Con: two slightly different behaviours for the two workspace types > could muddle the clarity of the current purely dynamic list: if a user > were to stumble upon it by accident, (s)he could be baffled. > > UI ideas: > - the name of the currently active workspace could be displayed in the > top bar, with a popup menu that allows browsing and choosing from all > workspaces, named or ad-hoc. > - ad-hoc namespaces could be listed with default labels, as "Work > space a", "Work space b" and so on, in italic or between quotation > marks to underline that it's a "synthetic" name. > - this widget would be helpful to recognize where you are at a glance > when you come back after a leave, and would allow mouse-wheel > scrolling (like the volume system icon) as an alternative fast > switching method for the intermediate user that doesn't want to go to > the overview all the time > - the widget would only allow name display and space selection in > "normal" mode, but would allow for editing of the currently selected > workspace name in overview. Thus naming an ad-hoc space would be very > natural, but still the overview would keep its sense of "the place > where you plan and manage your activities" > - this workspace widget could be placed right next to the > time/calendar, to consolidate a "what and when" context area. OS-X > places it among system indicators, but I'm not fond of that. This workspace switcher seems useful indeed. I don't know if it will accepted in core shell (drop at #gnome-design to talk with designers for that), but surely it will be welcome as an extension. I think it should be between "Activities" and the Application Menu, to create a sort of navigation bar. > (I'
Re: Thumbs up!
Bojan, Somewhat. > > In Gnome 2, each open app is a box on a taskbar. In Windows 7, that box > also has window representations once you get over it, so you can see > what is in each window. So, that's visually different. Yep. These representations (which I had totally forgotten, by the way) are still tinier than Overview windows though, and they're still placed regardless of the original window's location. My point stands. > Not necessarily. > > Once you reposition windows with expose, they are not easily > recognisable as the ones you are normally seeing in your original view. > That's the problem with expose - that's why you only use it when you get > in trouble with clutter. > And yet, you don't seem to have any trouble using taskbars. That's curious considering that they have the same problem, only worse. I use the word "problem" because it's what it seems to be for you. Please bear in mind that it's no problem from where I see it. > For me to go and pick a new application to run, I have to endure the > expose, which I don't want/need to endure. > If I get into the overview and there are no overlapping windows, I still > see expose view. Which, again, I have to endure. > If I want to move my windows to another workplace by dragging, I again > have to endure expose. > I am sorry that having to endure expose is so painful to you. I don't know what else to say, I'm afraid I can't relate. > And I don't really know where my window will end > up on another workspace, because I'll have to adjust it later. > Sorry - not true. If you open the Overview and drag a window to another workspace, it's placed in the exact same position it was before. You do know where it will end up. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:07 +0200, David Prieto wrote: > Bojan, > > Both of which are different from Gnome 2 taskbar. I am not advocating > > taskbar in particular (nor do I use it often). Anyway, see below. > > > They are not different in that they use tiny, randomly-placed (in that they > don't reflect the window's actual placement) items to represent windows. > THAT they have in common. Is that true, or isn't it? Somewhat. In Gnome 2, each open app is a box on a taskbar. In Windows 7, that box also has window representations once you get over it, so you can see what is in each window. So, that's visually different. I can't remember what Mac has right now (my daughter is on her Mac now, so I can't check), but I think the dock icon has an indication of the app running or something. > > What I would agree with is that workplace management has to make windows > > bigger then current Gnome 2 switcher. > > > Please don't stray. Wow, being pulled over by stray police, eh? ;-) > You said that "people remember things by shape, size and > position". I replied that based on that, locating a window on the Overview > (similar size, similar location) is easier than locating it on a taskbar or > on a dock (tiny items, random location), be it Gnome2's, Windows' or OSX's. > > Do you agree with that, or don't you? Not necessarily. Once you reposition windows with expose, they are not easily recognisable as the ones you are normally seeing in your original view. That's the problem with expose - that's why you only use it when you get in trouble with clutter. So, in some cases a smart task bar like Windows 7 may be easier. Or just about the same as expose. What I'm saying is that Gnome has workplaces. So, we just need to make them better in the switcher. And windows will stay where they are, they will be the same size (proportionally), so finding/moving them to another workplace will be easier. If they are cluttered, there is expose. > > If you have a lot of windows behind one another, this is where things like > > expose _are_ actually useful. Or are smarter taskbar. > > > > Well, here comes the news. In all other situations, in order to select a > partially hidden window, neither the Overview nor the Taskbar are necessary > because you can just click the part that's shown. > > So, basically, what you're saying is that in the only case where they ARE > necessary, the Overview does a better job than a tasklisk, or a dock, or > call it what you will. > > Can we agree about that and move to your other points? In which case overview is reduced to expose. But, overview is not expose - it has additional things in it - things that should be elsewhere. For me to go and pick a new application to run, I have to endure the expose, which I don't want/need to endure. If I get into the overview and there are no overlapping windows, I still see expose view. Which, again, I have to endure. If I want to move my windows to another workplace by dragging, I again have to endure expose. And I don't really know where my window will end up on another workspace, because I'll have to adjust it later. If I want to find hidden windows, I can then use expose. Which is then overview, minus the workspaces and apps. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Bojan, Both of which are different from Gnome 2 taskbar. I am not advocating > taskbar in particular (nor do I use it often). Anyway, see below. They are not different in that they use tiny, randomly-placed (in that they don't reflect the window's actual placement) items to represent windows. THAT they have in common. Is that true, or isn't it? > What I would agree with is that workplace management has to make windows > bigger then current Gnome 2 switcher. Please don't stray. You said that "people remember things by shape, size and position". I replied that based on that, locating a window on the Overview (similar size, similar location) is easier than locating it on a taskbar or on a dock (tiny items, random location), be it Gnome2's, Windows' or OSX's. Do you agree with that, or don't you? > If you have a lot of windows behind one another, this is where things like > expose _are_ actually useful. Or are smarter taskbar. > Well, here comes the news. In all other situations, in order to select a partially hidden window, neither the Overview nor the Taskbar are necessary because you can just click the part that's shown. So, basically, what you're saying is that in the only case where they ARE necessary, the Overview does a better job than a tasklisk, or a dock, or call it what you will. Can we agree about that and move to your other points? ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Named, persistent workspaces
Since the work towards 3.2 seems to have started... The behaviour currently presented in the shell (dynamically managed, ad-hoc workspaces) is a great way to introduce even a casual user to the concept of separate workspaces and solving the simple problems of "I need more space for my windows" or "I don't want to see this window right now". As users become familiar with the concept, though, it's possible that many of them will start thinking along different lines, where the spaces are planned beforehand and consistently to organize their work (a space for the editor, a space for a "research" browser window, one for email and so on), in line with what power users of unixy OSs have been doing since the dawn of time. I remember even reading something from Federico about how one goes when organizing a real work place, planning the work areas in advance. And on the same tone, I've read of many expert users who can't really come to terms with the totally dynamic management as it gets in the way of their habits, and forces them to set up their spaces every time. What's in a name? --- I propose to introduce an "advanced" workspace behaviour that is practically transparent for the new users, but allows for growth in usage pattern and would be more palatable to expert ones. It would simply mean to distinguish between "named" workspaces and "anonymous" or ad-hoc ones. Ad-hoc workspaces are the currently dynamically managed ones, and the default: - an ad-hoc workspace is created by middle clicking a launcher or dragging it to the empty space always available as last in the list - an ad-hoc workspace is deleted as soon as no windows are present Additionally, you would be able to give a name label of your choice to an existing ad-hoc space (thus defining its intended function): - a named workspace is not scrapped when the last window is closed, thus it's permanent until its name is cleared - a named workspace is shown with its little name label superimposed over the thumbnail in the workspace selector - named workspaces are given numbered key shortcuts for fast switching - the list of named workspaces and their shortcuts is a persistent user setting, and they are all available right after a fresh login - erasing a workspace name reverts it to ad-hoc behaviour. In particular, erasing the name of an empty space scraps it Finally: - DnD reordering of workspaces, both named and ad-hoc Pro: this simple change would accommodate most advanced use cases without forcing complexity upon beginners. Con: two slightly different behaviours for the two workspace types could muddle the clarity of the current purely dynamic list: if a user were to stumble upon it by accident, (s)he could be baffled. UI ideas: - the name of the currently active workspace could be displayed in the top bar, with a popup menu that allows browsing and choosing from all workspaces, named or ad-hoc. - ad-hoc namespaces could be listed with default labels, as "Work space a", "Work space b" and so on, in italic or between quotation marks to underline that it's a "synthetic" name. - this widget would be helpful to recognize where you are at a glance when you come back after a leave, and would allow mouse-wheel scrolling (like the volume system icon) as an alternative fast switching method for the intermediate user that doesn't want to go to the overview all the time - the widget would only allow name display and space selection in "normal" mode, but would allow for editing of the currently selected workspace name in overview. Thus naming an ad-hoc space would be very natural, but still the overview would keep its sense of "the place where you plan and manage your activities" - this workspace widget could be placed right next to the time/calendar, to consolidate a "what and when" context area. OS-X places it among system indicators, but I'm not fond of that. (I've had no time yet to build a few mockups, but I hope the concept is clear enough) I plan to spend some time learning how to put my code lines where my mouth is, but meanwhile I wondered if something was planned for the workspace management and what anyone thought about this direction - or the subject in general. - Elia ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
--- Original message --- From: David Prieto Mac OS X has dock. Windows 7 has its own version of taskbar, which is cascading, if I remember correctly. All these have the same common trait as the taskbar; they are tiny representations of open apps, placed NOT according to the real window's location. Which was precisely my point. Both of which are different from Gnome 2 taskbar. I am not advocating taskbar in particular (nor do I use it often). Anyway, see below. People remember things visually, by shape, size and position. Therefore it must be easier for them to identify their windows looking at relatively smaller representations of them, located in relatively similar positions, rather than in tiny representations located according to launch order instead of position. Which is what a taskbar, a dock and even the Dash are. Surely you will agree with this, won't you? What I would agree with is that workplace management has to make windows bigger then current Gnome 2 switcher. I don't know - by something complicated like clicking on the workspace one would like to manage in the switcher maybe? Changing size and position of windows for everyone is simply not helpful. Gnome had workspaces precisely to avoid cluttering, which then requires expose or taskbar. Instead of extending this good concept, we got forced into expose no matter what. And yes, workspaces should be static for that same reason (although I thought at one point dynamic ones would be a good idea too - I was wrong). Not semantics. If I look at my workspace switcher in Gnome 2 now, my windows are where they are. They won't move or resize. So, in Gnome 2. How do you reach a window that's hidden behind a bigger one? Without resorting to the taskbar, of course, which, based on your own arguments, we already established is worse for finding stuff. If you have a lot of windows behind one another, this is where things like expose _are_ actually useful. Or are smarter taskbar. Forcing expose on everyone all the time is the wrong thing to do. PS. Sorry for mixing workplaces and worspaces. Never know which is it. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Hello Bojan! 2011/4/26 Bojan Smojver : >> When I say that it "doesn't" I mean that it "doesn't shuffle the windows" >> (which is the expression you used later on), as in "it doesn't place them >> randomly on the screen". >> >> If your problem is that it doesn't keep them in the exact same place they >> were, well, yes, that's the way it works. Can't see how that's a problem, >> though. > > People remember things visually, by shape, size and position. I agree at this point! And I think the current window overview doesn't work very well. Besides switching back to a taskbar I'm a fan of the KDE4 workspace switcher. A small discussion, screenshots and a patch for the gnome-shell can be found here: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=615378 What do you think about that? Florian ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 06:02:52PM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Another option may be: > > - design basic behaviour that is consistent > - accelerate using 3D where possible That is not possible with the design today. GNOME shell was designed with certain things in mind. What you're suggesting was considered, but not done. You're suggestion is in practice not possible anymore. Another option is using LLVM to accelerate and provide certain features in software. GNOME shell is pushing things forward regarding requirements. As a result, there are limitations whom can use the shell. But that'll get fixed (similarly: nvidia driver + gnome-shell was slow when gnome-shell 3.0.0 was released; latest driver fixed that however). -- Regards, Olav ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Bojan, Mac OS X has dock. Windows 7 has its own version of taskbar, which is > cascading, if I remember correctly. > All these have the same common trait as the taskbar; they are tiny representations of open apps, placed NOT according to the real window's location. Which was precisely my point. > People remember things visually, by shape, size and position. > Therefore it must be easier for them to identify their windows looking at relatively smaller representations of them, located in relatively similar positions, rather than in tiny representations located according to launch order instead of position. Which is what a taskbar, a dock and even the Dash are. Surely you will agree with this, won't you? > Not semantics. If I look at my workspace switcher in Gnome 2 now, my > windows are where they are. They won't move or resize. > So, in Gnome 2. How do you reach a window that's hidden behind a bigger one? Without resorting to the taskbar, of course, which, based on your own arguments, we already established is worse for finding stuff. I know there's more to your message, but I'd rather just have that out of the way before discussing your other points. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Configuration options to configure (switch off) all major animations. Then it would be easy to experiment with a new gnome-shell fallback mode. Yes, the animations are well thought out and support the shell experience, but for some of us (old hardware, e.g. mac mini 2, high resolution) they are just destroying it. Juergen On 04/26/2011 10:06 AM, David Prieto wrote: Bojan, Taskbar (i.e. Gnome 2) is not the only way to manage currently running windows. See Mac OS X and Windows 7. What are the others? Surely not alt+tab, since Gnome-shell also has that one. Animation? I already know where my windows are. Why do I need animation to show me where they went if they didn't move? Hint: they _did_ move. Also note that they changed size in exposé. When I say that it "doesn't" I mean that it "doesn't shuffle the windows" (which is the expression you used later on), as in "it doesn't place them randomly on the screen". If your problem is that it doesn't keep them in the exact same place they were, well, yes, that's the way it works. Can't see how that's a problem, though. Please, you said it yourself: animation shows me where they went. If they went, how can they be in the same place? So it's not really a problem but rather you wanting to have the last word? Is it a semantics thing? By closing their eyes, I guess :-) Or just... you know, ignoring it. Really, I open new apps all the time and I don't even pay attention to the Overview. It's not like I go all "whoah man, what was that? did I just enter hyperspace?" everytime you launch an app. It's not even like you have to make a conscious effort not to notice it, just... don't pay attention to it. Honestly, I'm not sure what your point is or where to go from here. Why do I need to go to the overview *to see where my apps* are? I can see them right now in Gnome 2 and I don't have to lift a finger. And that's for all workspaces. As I said, you don't even need to "see where your apps are" anymore. Yes, dash. And who says dash (dock, favourites, whatever) should be at the bottom like in OS X? Would you put it at the top, then? You know you can actually propose things, right? Well, if I want to go to the notifications in normal view, I need to go to the bottom right. All other notifications are on the top right. So, yeah, I need to walk to different places. All notifications are at the bottom right. System icons are at the top right. Having them mixed in the old Notification Area was an old nuisance and I for one I'm glad to have lost it. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:06 +0200, David Prieto wrote: > What are the others? Surely not alt+tab, since Gnome-shell also has that > one. Mac OS X has dock. Windows 7 has its own version of taskbar, which is cascading, if I remember correctly. > When I say that it "doesn't" I mean that it "doesn't shuffle the windows" > (which is the expression you used later on), as in "it doesn't place them > randomly on the screen". > > If your problem is that it doesn't keep them in the exact same place they > were, well, yes, that's the way it works. Can't see how that's a problem, > though. People remember things visually, by shape, size and position. > So it's not really a problem but rather you wanting to have the last word? > Is it a semantics thing? Not semantics. If I look at my workspace switcher in Gnome 2 now, my windows are where they are. They won't move or resize. > Or just... you know, ignoring it. Really, I open new apps all the time and I > don't even pay attention to the Overview. It's not like I go all "whoah man, > what was that? did I just enter hyperspace?" everytime you launch an app. > > It's not even like you have to make a conscious effort not to notice it, > just... don't pay attention to it. Honestly, I'm not sure what your point is > or where to go from here. OK, try to watch a video that keeps changing camera angles all the time for 8 hours a day. Or 12. See how tired your eyes get. Unnecessary visual stimuli is not just annoying, it's tiring. > As I said, you don't even need to "see where your apps are" anymore. Now you're confusing me. I absolutely want to know where my running apps are. I want to be able to locate them by their shape, size and position. Isn't that the whole point of window management? > Would you put it at the top, then? You know you can actually propose things, > right? The first thing I'd change is overview. I'd kill it right away. It looked like a good idea at the time (admittedly, even to me when I watched YouTube videos of Gnome Shell), but in practice, it just a fad. As for dash it could be displayed horizontally (because it could have more items in it that way) once Activities (which should be called Applications, really) is pressed or gestured. It would be close to the mouse and it would go away once used, so that it's not using space like OS X dock. Underneath the dash, one could see all other apps, in either cascading (i.e. standard) or smartphone like menu. This is just one idea. > All notifications are at the bottom right. System icons are at the top > right. Having them mixed in the old Notification Area was an old nuisance > and I for one I'm glad to have lost it. Obviously, this is something where we disagree, so let's leave it at that. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Bojan, Taskbar (i.e. Gnome 2) is not the only way to manage currently running > windows. See Mac OS X and Windows 7. > What are the others? Surely not alt+tab, since Gnome-shell also has that one. > Animation? I already know where my windows are. Why do I need animation > to show me where they went if they didn't move? Hint: they _did_ move. > Also note that they changed size in exposé. > When I say that it "doesn't" I mean that it "doesn't shuffle the windows" (which is the expression you used later on), as in "it doesn't place them randomly on the screen". If your problem is that it doesn't keep them in the exact same place they were, well, yes, that's the way it works. Can't see how that's a problem, though. > Please, you said it yourself: animation shows me where they went. If > they went, how can they be in the same place? > So it's not really a problem but rather you wanting to have the last word? Is it a semantics thing? > By closing their eyes, I guess :-) > Or just... you know, ignoring it. Really, I open new apps all the time and I don't even pay attention to the Overview. It's not like I go all "whoah man, what was that? did I just enter hyperspace?" everytime you launch an app. It's not even like you have to make a conscious effort not to notice it, just... don't pay attention to it. Honestly, I'm not sure what your point is or where to go from here. > Why do I need to go to the overview *to see where my apps* are? I can see > them right now in Gnome 2 and I don't have to lift a finger. And that's > for all workspaces. > As I said, you don't even need to "see where your apps are" anymore. Yes, dash. And who says dash (dock, favourites, whatever) should be at > the bottom like in OS X? > Would you put it at the top, then? You know you can actually propose things, right? > Well, if I want to go to the notifications in normal view, I need to go > to the bottom right. All other notifications are on the top right. So, > yeah, I need to walk to different places. > All notifications are at the bottom right. System icons are at the top right. Having them mixed in the old Notification Area was an old nuisance and I for one I'm glad to have lost it. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 00:54 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Windows doesn't, it has its own fallback mode (it's actually even more > complicated than that, the Windows 7 shell has several levels of > complexity and it picks one based on how good it reckons your video > hardware is). The point being, Windows looks mostly like Windows. Gnome 3 with gnome-shell looks and behaves _nothing_ like fallback mode. > Apple owns the ecosystem, which makes it easier, as > always. If I remember correctly, they were doing compositing with eMac (used to own one) and similar machines, with no hardware acceleration whatsoever. > The options here are 'completely screw over anyone who can't run > Shell', 'severely limit the Shell', or 'wait years for absolutely > every non-Shell-capable-case to be rendered Shell-capable', none of > which seems attractive. Another option may be: - design basic behaviour that is consistent - accelerate using 3D where possible This is exactly what Compiz v. Metacity is today. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
If you've kept up at all with this mailing list, you'll come to realize that the developers have a reason (which they believe to be absolutely right) for every single change. Nobody's opinion is going to change those decisions as they are pretty much dead set on them. Complaining only gets negative responses, and providing your argument of why things should be different only get the "well that's just your opinion" response. I do like a lot of the ideas behind Gnome 3, but I can't stand the whole dynamic workspace approach. I used Gnome 3 for about a month, but I just couldn't deal with it. The alternative is to install Compiz (which can run on top of the Gnome 3 DE without the shell) for now, and wait (and hope) for extensions to be released providing the functionality that you want. -- Diego Fernandez - 爱国 ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:01 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 19:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > This mail could perhaps do with more details. :) > > The gist of it is: > > - fallback mode means two Gnome experiences, so people like myself that > have a 3D capable desktop and a remote VNC session have to switch back > and forth between two different modes of operation (i.e. no consistency) > while using the same computer (really, really weird); Gnome 3 should > look and work the same anywhere, just like Windows or OS X do; Windows doesn't, it has its own fallback mode (it's actually even more complicated than that, the Windows 7 shell has several levels of complexity and it picks one based on how good it reckons your video hardware is). Apple owns the ecosystem, which makes it easier, as always. The options here are 'completely screw over anyone who can't run Shell', 'severely limit the Shell', or 'wait years for absolutely every non-Shell-capable-case to be rendered Shell-capable', none of which seems attractive. > - activities "overview" is a mistake; it causes unnecessary visual > change and it forces users to manage windows half in that view and half > in the regular view > - exposé behaviour in overview is compounding the previous mistake (i.e. > the separate overview problem); it changes position and size of windows, > forcing the user to visually search for windows yet again > > - windows/applications switch in overview is yet another mistake; in > windows view, one can't actually see their windows the way they are, > because they have been shuffled by exposé (workspaces are mostly hidden > on the right, so that doesn't really count); applications menu should be > accessible directly from the normal view (users don't need to suffer a > visual change and forget what their current workspace looks like in > order to start a new app) I kinda see what you're saying here, but none of these things seems to bug me in practice at all, so I don't really know where to go with it. > - dock (favourites) is in the wrong place, because most desktop screens > (and Gnome 3 is primarily a desktop system) have a lot less pixels > vertically then horizontally; in contrast, OS X dock is in the correct > place (and I'm no fan of OS X at all) I think the 'dock' is placed on the side precisely because most displays are wider than they are tall; it uses up space that's often going to waste anyway. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
Am 26.04.2011 09:33, schrieb Bojan Smojver: On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:46 +0200, David Prieto wrote: For me it's not. It saves me the effort of managing windows half as windows (obviously) and half as tiny taskbar list items. Taskbar (i.e. Gnome 2) is not the only way to manage currently running windows. See Mac OS X and Windows 7. It doesn't. Overview places windows according to their previous position. A window you placed to the left will also be at the left in Overview. Plus, there's an animation showing you where each window went. Animation? I already know where my windows are. Why do I need animation to show me where they went if they didn't move? Hint: they _did_ move. Also note that they changed size in exposé. The problem is that some windows might be partly or completely covered by other windows. Not moving them to not overlap would mean that these windows wouldn't be visible in the overview, which would somehow defeat its purpose of letting the user see and switch to every other window. Thus, the moving is a necessary evil. Please, you said it yourself: animation shows me where they went. If they went, how can they be in the same place? I think he meant that if, say, you have a window on the left side of a workspace, it will also appear at the left in the overview, that is, it is approximately at the same place (but not exactly, naturally). Regards, Denis ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Thumbs up!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:46 +0200, David Prieto wrote: > For me it's not. It saves me the effort of managing windows half as windows > (obviously) and half as tiny taskbar list items. Taskbar (i.e. Gnome 2) is not the only way to manage currently running windows. See Mac OS X and Windows 7. > It doesn't. Overview places windows according to their previous position. A > window you placed to the left will also be at the left in Overview. Plus, > there's an animation showing you where each window went. Animation? I already know where my windows are. Why do I need animation to show me where they went if they didn't move? Hint: they _did_ move. Also note that they changed size in exposé. > The taskbar, on the other hand, DID change item placement. It didn't place > windows according to their position but to the order in which they were > opened, forcing you to search for them (yet again). Again, Gnome 2 taskbar is not the only way to manage running apps or open windows. > No they haven't. Please, you said it yourself: animation shows me where they went. If they went, how can they be in the same place? > If they just want to start an app they can just ignore all that visual > change, I'd say. By closing their eyes, I guess :-) > as for the Applications menu itself, I don't think people > are even supposed to use it all that much. :-) > In my case, I use them to get out of the way windows that I'm not gonna use > for the time being. You know what is a good way to visually locate different > "activities" consistently? The Dash. You open the Overview, you go to the > Dash and there's everything, so you won't even have to stop and think if the > app you want to reach is in your current workspace or in a different one. Why do I need to go to the overview to see where my apps are? I can see them right now in Gnome 2 and I don't have to lift a finger. And that's for all workspaces. > Really, the tools are all there. I think the problem is that you're using > them from a Gnome2 perspective. Which is fine, it does take some time to > adapt. Er, no. I'm trying to understand why the system became less useful. I'm having a feeling that some stuff was done just because 3D cards could do cool effects. Well, that's not a very good reason, IMHO. > I suspect the Dash (what you call Dock) is there in order to be near the > Activities button (and the hot corner). If you were using just your mouse > you wouldn't want to take it to the top-left corner and THEN to the bottom > of the screen every single time, now would you? Yes, dash. And who says dash (dock, favourites, whatever) should be at the bottom like in OS X? > Again, no it doesn't. I can use my screen up to the bottom, that space has > not been taken. It's only the bottom-right corner that's taken by the > message tray. Not that you need to walk your mouse up and down either, > because opening the Overview will also show your notifications (hence the > name). You can take your cursor up OR down, depending on what's handier to > you at that moment. Well, if I want to go to the notifications in normal view, I need to go to the bottom right. All other notifications are on the top right. So, yeah, I need to walk to different places. -- Bojan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
