Re: Some things I think GNOME should improve

[Les Paul <lespaul23es gmail com>]

2013/4/11 Adam  Tauno Williams <awilliam whitemice org>:
> Because that is not how it has been done for decades.  And a survey of
> my screen shows that all non-trivial applications actually have it right
> there in the Menu as a discrete option.
>
> > And why it is intuitive that it is located on the title bar?
>
> That is where the application 'global' menu is.  Personally I have
> doubts how intuitive the AppMenu itself is;  that one really feels to me
> like solution-in-search-of-a-problem, but whatever.  You show a user
> hey-there-is-a-menu-located-waaaaaaaay-over-here, they say "huh, ok",
> life goes on.

Well, then that's the same. Help has been moved, you show the user
where is located, and problem solved. You cannot say that the reason
is that it has been done for decades. It would delay progress. You
have to throw away your preconceived ideas about how something works,
and ask yourself what is the best solution to a problem. People get
used to things faster than you think.

> > I spend much more than two minutes closing Nautilus.
>
> ?????
>
> > Maybe in a week, maybe in a month. If each time I need two seconds to do it,
>
> TWO SECONDS??? What?

I didn't time it. But, whatever. One second. Still, I will spend more
time than two minutes.


> You should consider joining the GNOME design team;  that would be the
> useful place have this discussion.

I don't know how to do that, and I am not even a designer.

> > Just imagine that you buy a new car. But, before you start it, you
> > have to push a button which asks you something that just few people
> > use before starting the car. And most of the time they even don't use
> > it! This has any kind of logic to you?
>
> False analogy again, a computer is not a car.  Just stop with the
> "imagine that" analogies.  Desktop interaction can be discussed as
> desktop interaction, that is what it is, it is not something else.
> Analogies just confuse and ambiguate.
>
> And where help is doesn't obstruct doing anything;  I do not have to
> find-Help-then-work.  I work, and find Help if I need it.

I have to click on the title bar and go over 6 or 7 options before Exit.

The analogy is correct. If not, any analogy could be refute by "X is
not the same that Y". But that's the purpose of an analogy!!!

> And I do have to answer a question ever time I sit down at my computer:
> username+credentials, or at least credentials [if the screen is locked].
Yes, but that is because of this is the easiest way to keep up your
personal data safe. If somebody creates something that unlock your
desktop just recognizing your face with the same security level than a
password and at the same price, it would be a better system.
Complexity is not made up intentionally. If you hide complexity and
you just leave the essence, the very purpose of an application, you
will have a more efficient application. It is false that the best
application is that which has more options. The best application (or
system) is that which allows you to do your task with the fewer steps.
This begins with the start of the application, and it last till you
close it. So, the thing is, which way requires less steps or time? My
way or the actual way?