Re: Just show me my window

[Allan Day <allanpday gmail com>]

I'm only responding to some of your points. There's far too much here to
touch on everything...

> In current GNOME Shell design there are seven places where application can be
> started or activated:
> 1) applications area,
> 2) documents area,
> 3) desktop,
> 4) Alt+Tab switcher,
> 5) notification area,
> 6) top panel active application menu,
> 7) top panel tray area.

Each of these clearly do not have the same function, nor does their
current implementation correspond to the shell design [1].

I'm not familiar with the terminology you are using here. What is the
'top panel tray area'? Please use common terminology (you can refer to
the design document [1] for that).

> For example, my instant messenger icon tend to be on six places at the same
> time (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). This is incredibly! I start it on application area, then
> switching to it on desktop or Alt+Tab, then it show me new message in
> notification area, then I close it on top panel application menu. Every time I
> must interact with different widgets and context.
> 
> Why so many ways to JUST SHOW ME A WINDOW?

Why are you shouting?! ;) This is supposed to be a friendly list.

> I really do not understand why
> GNOME Shell designers decided to keep complexity of Gnome 2 and even add some
> more.

'They' didn't. Many parts of GNOME 2 have been simplified through the
shell design. Take a look at the designs [1] for the notification area
(aka the system status area) for an example.

> Please think of some way to join all these options to ONE. This is possible.
> For example, what is the true difference between icons in applications area and
> notification area? Minor. So why we need two icons and two areas?
> What is the true difference between top panel active application menu and
> regular window menu? Why you do not want global regular menu, but think that
> top panel active application menu is OK?

All of these questions are answered in the design document [1].

> When designing GNOME
> Shell please do not think about documents. From user perspective document is in
> fact application window with some content, it is useful because user can open it
> in some application window. Users most of they time do not think or care about
> documents that are on they computers but are not open.

These are some big claims. Can you provide evidence for them? Personally
speaking, finding specific documents is a fairly common activity. I also
observe this in others who I observe using their computers.

> Therefore I believe that application window should be also the center of GNOME
> Shell design. So I can look at all of above mentioned places from the
> perspective of window. GNOME Shell should show me all this functionality in ONE,
> SIMILAR, CONSISTENT WAY.

You're shouting again.

> This could be on my desktop, just like started
> application in overlay mode so far. All other types of interaction are out of
> window context and SHOULD BE AVOIDED. Application in all above mentioned places
> can be shown on my desktop as window (full or thumbnail) + icon + title. No more
> complexity. Even non-started application can have its thumbnail just like
> documents.

Can you provide a design or mockup demonstrating what you are suggesting? Can you also explain what benefits your proposal has, and how it would cater to specific use cases?

> Forget about started or non-started application, users do not care and do not
> remember what is started or not, what is on tasklist or tray. They just want to
> use it WHEN AND ONLY WHEN they need it. And this is my computer duty to start
> application that is not started, and stop application that I no more use at
> given time, or even install application when I need it and start it for me (just
> like codec or add-on).

How does this relate to the design of GNOME Shell? How does this
translate into design? It's very easy to say 'my computer should do
this', or 'users what that'. Producing designs is the hard part.

> Current GNOME Shell design is not as revolutionary as it could be. 

The aim of the shell isn't to be revolutionary.

I hope that helps...

Allan

[1] http://www.gnome.org/~mccann/shell/design/GNOME_Shell-20091114.pdf

-- 
GoogleTalk: allanpday gmail com
IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org
Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/