Re: Some questions raised by 131010

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

(Sorry for the late reply, only have time to read the list occasionally
but I felt a late reply was very necessary)


On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Shaun McCance wrote:

> > > Currenty GNOME is neither. Most GTK applications tend to be application
> > > centric, though.


> > > A little bit outside the scope of this mail is another thing: What type
> > > of interface should GNOME applications use: a multi window interface
> > > like the GIMP or a single window interface, like Inkscape? There seem to
> > > be no recommendations about this toppic.

> >   I think a one document per window is fine.  Using tabs is fine too.
> > But please, stop the gimp/dia/sodipodi madness.
>
> Providing tabs as an *option* is fine.  But when two documents are in
> different tabs of the same window, I can't look at them both at the same
> time.  I can't compare them, reference one as I edit another, or any of
> the other things that computers should make easier.  These are pretty
> basic things that I can do with physical pieces of paper on my desk.
> It's a shame when using a computer is actaully less convenient.
>
> I really want an option in gedit for "Never ever ever ever ever use
> tabs.  Ever.  I'm serious."

I'm fairly sure there is already a request to turn off tabs when you only
have a single document open per window.

> >   By default there should be a one-to-one mapping of windows to
> > documents.  It's a very simple rule, easy for users and developers.
> > Just stop using windows as floating toolbars.  It's just too
> > confusing, not matter how useful people with 3 3000x2000 screens think
> > it is, the rest of us with a single 1024x768 screen think it sucks.
> > For instance, _every time_ I start Dia I have to waste a few seconds
> > adjusting the toolbar and document window positions and sizes.  If it
> > were a single window with a toolbar, I could just press the 'maximize'
> > button or keyboard shortcut and get on with my work.

I'm sure the Dia developers would appreciate help of any kind you can
provide in case anyone is interested.

> All right, I understand that not everybody has a huge resolution.  And
> for the record, I only have a 1280x1024 resolution, which isn't all that
> huge by today's standards.  And applications should certainly do what

I am afraid that is still a large resolution by todays standards, and
developers and computer enthusiasts tend to have better equipment.

For a long time I have had very crappy equipment (particulary because a
working monitor is the last thing I'm going to replace) and it pains me to
see developers either deliberately or inadavertantly excluding users with
smaller screens.

Even on a screen that can do larger resolutions 1024x768 is seems
big enough, but mostly I prefer a higher refresh rate (easier on the
eyes) than a larger desktop area.

I'm sure you wont believe me on the importance of catering to
users with smallers screens but I will try and convince you anyway with
some statistics

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

2004  	Higher  	1024x768  800x600  640x480  Unknown
October 10% 	51% 	34% 	1% 	4%
July 	10% 	50% 	35% 	1% 	4%

Developers and designers should try and be inclusive, and by creating
designs that won't work well on 800x600 diplays you risk excluding 30% *
of potential users.  (* I'm being conservative and only taking the 34%
number as a guide and assuming that schools dont generally have the best
hardware but I think the numbers still speak very loudly)

Open source developers in particular should consider projects like RULE
(Run Up to Date Linux Everywhere) and others with tight bugdets who
particularly want to avoid the upgrade treadmill.  For some people the
real saving of being able to run a Linux or FreeBSD setup is that
they are not forced to pay the cost of the hardware upgrade that
seems to happen with each new release from Microsoft.

If you prefer a more technical justification it makes it impractical to
run (or easily port) your appliation to handheld devices, so unless you
have an extremely good reason to do otherwise it makes sense to go with a
design that will work well on a large range of screen sizes.

> they can to accomodate common setups.  For instance, GIMP's new docking
> toolbox stuff lets you put all your tools in one window.  That certainly
> helps when screen real estate is at a premium.

I am almost amused by people on the one hand telling me I need a better
window manager and multiple desktops to make the most use out of certain
applications and then to see the same applications adding a dock to help
take some of the pain out of window management.

Inkscape has taken a much more SDI approach and abandoned the CSDI
approach.  It remains to be seen if it will work out for the corner cases
[1] that some CSDI users like so much (such as putting all the tools on
the second monitor of a dual head setup) but so far it seems to be working
out well.

> 3) There's no clear way of having multiple views of one image.  Working
> on a zoomed in image while watching a normal size view is very helpful.

I am not sure what you mean, SDI applications can have multiple
views including Inkscape and Abiword (and Gnumeric, sort of, it only has
a "Freeze Panes" split view so far).

> Clearly, CSDI applications annoy you.

> But before you run around yelling about how things "suck",

I think it is fair to say: "The current generation of CSDI applications do
not seem to be well suited to smaller displays".

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

Free SVG Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org
Abiword is Awesome http://abisource.com

[1] I can particularly remember users with Dual head setups liking CSDI
applications and there were one or two advantages that people really liked
about CSDI but I have never been convinced that most of these things could
not also be achieved by a well designed SDI application and I'm hoping
Inkscape will gradually prove it.