Re: GNOME 3.1.90 beta released!
- From: Denis Washington <denisw online de>
- To: Allan Day <allanpday gmail com>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GNOME 3.1.90 beta released!
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:05:30 +0200
Am 01.09.2011 15:22, schrieb Allan Day:
Hey Denis!
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Denis Washington<denisw online de> wrote:
Am 01.09.2011 11:34, schrieb Frederic Peters:
Hello all,
This is 3.1.90, and it's out! It's the first beta of what will be
GNOME 3.2, enjoy it while it's time, the next beta (3.1.91) will
arrive next week.
I saw this in the release notes of gnome-control-center:
"Power:
- Remove power and suspend buttons config (Bastien Nocera) (#652183)
(#657068)"
I am sad.
Oh dear, don't be sad!
The intent behind those changes is to ensure consistency and
predictability. If we know what the behaviour of the hard buttons is
going to be, we can produce better designs elsewhere and it is easier
to provide users with advice and guidance.
Also, we really want to be able to specify separate long and short
button press actions for the hard power button (like on a mobile
phone). It is hard to accommodate that kind of behaviour within a set
of preferences that are easy to understand.
Sounds interesting, though there is still the discoverability issue: you
would have to know that a long button press powers off, and that
pressing the power button gives you a shutdown method not accessible
from the shell. (In fact, there are still a surprising number of people
who still think that you must never ever touch the power button or risk
your computer's health otherwise.)
Having said that, I'd like to make clear that the option itself is not
what I am sad about. In fact, I would even be happy about the removal if
the default behavior were sane and allowed me, and everyone who wants to
do so, to easily discover a choose an energy-preserving full shutdown
method. But currently, this is not the case, and this is what worries me.
I know that the GNOME design team has its reasons to promote Suspend; it is
great from a usability perspective, and I also suspend often and like it.
However, I feel that the rigor with which this is pushed upon the complete
user base of GNOME (minus those are knowledgeable enough to change a hidden
dconf setting) is not right.
While suspending is convenient, many people do want to save power when they
don't use their desktop or laptop over night, or simply because they only
use it one or two hours a day anyway. I don't see this as a minor use case;
its a general consideration of many, enviromentally aware people, especially
in European countries such as Germany where the Green party is going strong
and we are already warned about the environmental impact of standby devices
in elementary school. Regardless of their technical knowledge, such people
will be put off by not being able to properly shut off, or having to jump
trough hoops to do so. They will think that GNOME doesn't care about the
environment. I don't want our wonderful community to make that impression.
I don't want to start yet another flame war with this message (please, let's
be sensible and respectful when discussing this). Neither do I want to
denounce the design team; in fact, I greatly respect the design team for the
many things it has done to make GNOME 3 the awesome piece of software that
it is today, and that it will be tomorrow. I also don't want to throw
everybody from the design team in the same pot: there are GNOME designers
that are sympathetic towards some kind of compromise, as the discussion
around bug #652183 [1] reveals. However, I feel that the current situation
is not right, and that *something* has to be done to reach a solution that
combines a high degree of usability with easily accessible ways to act
environmentally responsible.
I honestly think that the behaviour of those buttons is a separate
issue from whether they should be configurable or not.
True. As I said, I'm not looking for configurability, but for an overall
solution that allows to both suspend and power down.
Thanks for the kind words. :)
You're welcome. :)
Regards,
Denis
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]