Re: GNOME now

[Emily Gonyer <emilyyrose gmail com>]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk> wrote:
>> > Lets be intellectually honest - a command line client editor is *NOT*
>> > user-friendly.
>>
>> I don't agree at all with this assessment: it depends entirely on the
>> audience it is targeting.
>
> If the goal is freedom then presumably the goal is freedom for all not
> freedom for the special elite who speak gconf.
>
>> because the amount of available options is, currently, not something
>> that should even be exposed; applications use the settings machinery
>> to save state, as well as user preferences, and that should not be
>> exposed to any user - including the one of tinkering tendencies.
>
> Why not ?
>
>> that is not entirely our decision, considering that GNOME is currently
>> shipped by distributions downstream of us. the most that GNOME as
>> project can do is saying the the tweak tool is part of the project.
>
> The tweak tool is not integrated.
>
> If you look at say a modern digital TV - which is a product that
> notoriously has to deal with everyone from the totally tech clueless to
> the video nuts who want to hand adjust everything then it is all in the
> settings.
>
> Most of it you don't notice because there are usually options in the
> settiings that basically look like
>
>         Audio Balance:  Standard   Clear Voice   User Defined
>
> and only if someone goes and selects user defined does the page of
> configuration material actually show itself. That's good design because
> it is discoverable, it is easy to back away from and also because it
> means the user defined settings can be fiddled with and are not lost when
> you flip back to a safe default. Rather they are kept and flipping back
> to user defined goes back to them as left.
>
> Much of this stuff in Gnome IMHO belongs in settings in that same kind of
> way.
>
> My TV is insanely configurable, but while I personally don't fiddle with
> the configuration much it doesn't get in the way. At worst the user
> experience is a one off
>
>         "I wonder what 'user defined' is
>          click
>          ooh not what I wanted
>          click"
>
> and only while exploring the settings by choice

Exactly. This is what most browsers do now as well - they have a
'preferences' with very basic, standard things (much as we have in
settings currently). Then theres a little button for "advanced" - and
then you get all sorts of settings for all manner of things. Why can't
we integrate much of whats in dconf & tweak-tool into settings in
'advanced' or 'custom' sections?

>
>> as a personal opinion, I don't agree that the tweak tool should be
>> installed by default; it can be pointed out in the documentation as a
>> way to get more options, but it's really up to the user to decide
>> whether or not she should install it. the user experience should stand
>> by itself.
>
> Well it doesn't - clearly as is evidenced by the fact people are forking
> it and shipping the forks in major distros.
>
> Alan



-- 
Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius,
power and magic in it. -  Goethe

Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't
matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr.Seuss

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that
counts can be counted. - Albert Einstein