Re: why I don't use GNOME

[thristian atdot org]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 07:04:48PM +0100, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote:
> mbabcock fibrespeed net (2001-03-04 at 1518.21 -0500):
> > Oh no, another Mac-Windows flame war ...
> 
> To death. And Amiga and Unix reinforcements are deploying too. ;]

TALLY HO! :)

> > Ilan Volow wrote:
> > > dialogs with
> > > "Ok" on right and "Cancel" on left
> > This is a huge argument -- you shouldn't arbitrarily say that one is
> > proven better than the other.
> 
> MacOS does that, no? Based in its guidelines, IIRC. Anybody know
> exactly why?

Because people tend to go for the bottom-right as a reference point.
Watch yourself next time you open a dialog box, looking for OK or
Cancel: eyes drop to the lower-right, then scan backwards along the
bottom...

> Which reminds me: what are the plans for GNOME UI docs? 

I think they're still pending on Arlo's hard-drive.

> > A) People's eyes move in from the lower left usually ... so defaults
> > should be there, but ...

No, people's eyes move in from the lower-right. The lower-left and
top-right are the most ignored parts of the dialog box.

> Also if you do not use a Western languaje?

That's part of l10n and i18n.

> > B) Western people consider movement (progress) to be left to right, so
> > the "go on" option should be on the right ...
> 
> Yep, but then you also have to take into account that the buttons are
> right aligned. I think I see why MacOS does "go on" on right, cos you
> always get it there, not matter how many other things, and the verb is
> very explicit (not just "ok", but things like "delete" if possible),
> so read one button and you have a general idea of what the window is
> about.

Your point about button labelling is true, though mostly unrelated to
button justification.

> [Other features]
> 
> Uuum, what if all this things can be toggle via: Use MacOS | Windows |
> whatevere style. I think if changes match as a group and do not
> interfere with other things, the better, like GTK+ and wm themes, each
> one its own, all happy and more user base. 

Argh! Argh! Not more options! :)

> OK, somebody will raise that too much configuration is bad, 

 :)

> but I guess that are the reason for user levels (some GNOME apps
> already do this, like Nautilus) and extensibility (some too, like
> Sawfish).

I have no evidence and not even an argument to support my case,
nothing more than a gut feeling, but I dislike both examples you gave:
Sawfish is particularly bad (No clear indication of what Meta means,
no clear indication of what the funny drop-down list does, no idea
where options go when they're "hidden"..) but apart from the strange
idea of trying to lump users into three distinct categories, I feel it
should be possible to make one UI which works for everyone.

As an aside, I finally figured out that GNOME *does* provide a nifty
API for dealing with .desktop files, so one day indeed I might
actually write my tree-based foot-menu replacement.. :)

<snip>

> > > As far as app listers go,the best layout I've seen
> > > is implemented in WindowMaker. It puts nice, big,
> > > Fitts friendly buttons representing currently running
> > > apps against the border of the screen. Using the
> > > middle mouse button to bring up a pop-up menu with
> > > currently running apps is also a very nice touch. If
> > > one or two things were handled just a little bit
> > > differently, the WindowMaker method would come close
> > > to being the perfect solution.
> 
> You can have a list of windows too, check your window manager config,
> even tied to keycombos, so it can work anywhere (Fitts' "under the
> cursor").

No arguments here - WM is very good on the UI standards (for which we
should blame NeXT, I suppose)

> > The Mac-finder like button on the eMac Enlightenment theme works really
> > well too.
> 
> Then the GNOME finder applet too.
> 
> > I may have a copy, or I may not (Apple doesn't want anyone to have it
> > ... )... E-mail me.
> 
> A copy of what?

The Apple-infringing Finder-menu applet, I suppose.

-- 
,------------------------------------------------- ------ ---- -- -  -   -
| Screwtape | Reply-To: is munged on Usenet | members.xoom.com/thristian
|--------------------------------------------- ---- ---- --- -- - - -  -  
|
| "Woof!", said Timmy.
|