Re: why I don't use GNOME

["Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero" <famrom idecnet com>]

thristian atdot org (2001-03-06 at 0731.51 +1100):
> > 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...

I think I do a bit... but due right aligment or due other things? I
dunno, in Emacs and Xterms, the text is normally on the left (left to
right languajes), as well as scroll bar, and I rarelly look the right
side. I do not have a clock / counter in my eyes, so I can not see
which areas I use more. I am a bad example. :]

> > Which reminds me: what are the plans for GNOME UI docs? 
> I think they're still pending on Arlo's hard-drive.

I hope he does back ups. :]

> > > 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.

Everybody has a different place... or the sample is too small (could
be), or humans do not normally have side preferences (except culture
impossed), cos nobody agrees.

> > Also if you do not use a Western languaje?
> That's part of l10n and i18n.

And if some people accept it, side details are part of "not everybody
is right handed" too.

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

I think everybody agree on good texts for buttons (or any message).
The place and order would still be a problem.

> > [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! :)

More and more. ;] The point of options is that not eveybody is like
the rest, it can help in some situations and you always have the "use
the default options" option (hint for those that did not discovered
it).

> > 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

Bad UI, not bad underlying layer. If you read SF config phrases, you
will realize some just need other words, or a change of section to
become nice, not nuke them. One example is the "Warp pointer to
selected windows", which is not under Focus, or under a new Pointer
section (and phrased "Warp pointer when changing focus"). I have seen
it too many times, nobody looked under Misc, where it is.

The Meta config, could be phrased better and some tips about where
Meta is could be given. As well as it seems that "rare symbol keys"
working as Hyper, and Alt as Meta and Alt seem to work fine with all
apps while at the same time avoiding collisions (and sounds logical,
the windows key handling windows). But that is pure personal
preference, as your gut feeling.

One thing I am against is that everything is intuitive, which drives
to simple questions and docs. If everything is easy, I wonder why
humans waste first years learning (and sometimes, all life) or why no
computer user can control all without reading something.

> idea of trying to lump users into three distinct categories, I feel it
> should be possible to make one UI which works for everyone.

I doubt. Some people like simple things, other complex ones... I have
too many options that are not default, cos I work faster that way. But
if you show them to other guys, you will scare them. Some people live
with defaults, even if easy to change, others do not.

Every time I have to use a MS Windows or a Apple Mac I find myself
trying to discover why I have to follow some steps, instead of others
that seem so natural, and sometimes there is not way to change the
steps. IE I have a panel (task bar in MS Windows) on the side, cos
lateral movement is easier for me.

After some talk, I guess I am going into the "not listed" category of
Sawfish (novice, advance, expert and then "not listed - poke the lisp
and make it work as you want") and I am not alone. But one thing is
change something and another code from zero or fork the source.
Systems that allow easy changes are very nice, and users do not have
to be forced into it, it is an option.

> 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.. :)

Best wishes.

GSR