Re: The relationship between Desktop and Panel

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

>[Would be bad to shove everything inside of the panel]

See other mail.

>
>
>>
>> I also remain worried about the desktop being too much of a mess to
>> navigate.
>
>This is not our responsibility.

I beg to differ!  It's our responsibility to make users walk from a GNOME
box to a Windows machine and say "Damn, this Windows stuff is really bad,
the emperor has new clothes".

(Keep in mind, that line was typed by someone who really likes the Microsoft
GUI:-)

> However, we can reduce the likelyhood of
>the user's desktop becoming a huge graveyard of icons by giving them a
>more elegant and efficient means of accessing their favorite/most used
>items. Ever see a typical Win95 user's desktop? They have the tendency of
>amassing dozens of icons on the desktop, all shortcuts, because they
>neither want to bother with digging them out of folders, or accessing
>them via some clumsy-ass hack like the "Start" button.


"Clumsy-ass hack".  Are you sure you aren't attacking a structure because of
who makes it and not what it is?  The start menu is *made* bad because of
what goes in it--sorts by company names instead of app title or
category(thank marketing), the existance of the Programs menu, and--this is
the key--an unnecessarily obtuse method of fixing the contents.

What's interesting about all the above is that they refer to filler bugs,
not concept bugs.  The GNOME interface can be made absolutely awful in much
the same way that the Start menu can; it's just that it won't screw up like
that by default.

Yes, I'm going to keep on repeating why the Start menu isn't crap until
somebody replies or people stop inaccurately bashing Microsoft.  Like I said
before--bash their business practices.  They really don't have much defense
there.

> [Start menu sucked because of how it made you hunt through tons of menus]

This isn't a bug of the start menu.  It's a bug with the default
implementation.  There's a big difference.


Bowie--can you provide a little bit more information on the AmigaTOOLS menu
system?  It appears its strength was in that it was very logical how to
add/subtract menu items...but lets not forget, the entire Start Menu that
you rail against is just a heirarchy of folders.  So what does AmigaTOOLS do
better?  Not a hostile or sarcastic question.


>
>>
>> So, I offer the following suggestion:
>>
>> [Allow desktop folder to be put on panel]
>
>Clumsy, and unintuitive. I dont mean to take a whiz on your suggestion,
>but it would be a nightmare for users to contend with. Keep the panel and
>the desktop separate--They dont belong intermeshed. The end result would
>be something WORSE than Win95's start button, if you could
>imagine that. :)


Why is this clumsy/unintuitive?  Assume the user has configured their
desktop with their favorite applications.  That implies they know and
remember what apps/documents/whatever are hanging out there.

So lets say they want to load something off the desktop.  Isn't it MORE
clumsy/unintuitive to have to minimize everything to get to that special
spot where your specific app is hiding?  Fitt's Law seems to favor me in
this case.

>>
>> 2)  *All* entries on the gnomeprint should have a checkbox besides them.
If
>> you check it, it does the same thing as dragging the item from the
>> gnomeprint to the panel should do:  Adds that icon or folder to the
panel.
>>
>Checkmarks indicate something has been "OK'ed"... Use them appropriately,
>not liberally.


"OK, put this on the panel."

I see your point, though.

[Example of how putting checkboxes everywhere ends up OK for new users but
is just ugly and distracting all around]

What about giving the selected gnomeprint menu item an "enpanel/depanel"
button, or a checkmark, and then italicizing/underlining any entry that's
existing on the panel?  Would that self-document sufficiently while
preventing the admittedly high level of repetitive ugliness you refer to?