Re: Suggestions.

[Ryan Peters <sloshy45 sbcglobal net>]

On 03/31/2010 05:37 PM, Jason Sauders wrote:
> Ryan Peters wrote:
> > On 03/31/2010 11:11 AM, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:39 -0500, Ryan Peters wrote:
> > >
> > > > The last time I checked, most people didn't care about workspaces, and
> > > > restricting the shell to only show one desktop at a time in the
> > > > overlay makes sense because it's easier to see all of your
> > > > applications (especially on something like a netbook). I like the grid
> > > > view more personally, of course, but that's only because I like using
> > > > multiple workspaces at once, which most people don't do. Showing a
> > > > giant grid at start would only scare new users (like my mother, which
> > > > only needs a computer for Picasa, Gwibber, and Facebook) and giving
> > > > them too much immediate functionality isn't a good idea. The more
> > > > simple we make Gnome-Shell appear, the better. Of course, the grid
> > > > option is always there if you like it and it's just one click to turn
> > > > on ;)
> > > I thought part of the motivation for the shell was making workspaces a
> > > more obvious and dynamic feature.
> > >
> > > If one doesn't use more than one workspace even with the shell, why
> > > should there be a difference between a grid with only 1 space or a
> > > "flat" view, aside of a means to add a workspace?
> > The other workspaces are still visible, but with a scroll-bar. People 
> > like myself use many workspaces at once for organization, but most 
> > people will probably only use 1 or 2 workspaces. Plus, with the 
> > single-workspace-at-a-time view, there's less zooming, making people 
> > less dizzy. I do see your point though that the grid view would also 
> > be a good default, but it's not a huge difference... is it?
>
> Are we on the same page? I'm talking about when we go to the overview 
> mode and we click on the Applications menu to launch new applications. 
> I'm not talking about currently running applications that you see the 
> "thumbnails" for that you can scroll in/out on. Before when we clicked 
> Applications to select a new app to open, it used to be single file 
> one vertical line and not 5 to a row like it is now. I am much more in 
> favor of the old way Applications were displayed in that menu than the 
> grid way it is now.
>
> But about the dock idea, I just don't know... I just don't see how it 
> makes sense to use Gnome Shell without something like that. So many 
> people I speak to who use Gnome Shell use Docky. And while Docky is 
> great, I feel like it's kind of a serious -1 to Gnome Shell to have 
> that "incomplete" user interface feeling. At least with Gnome 2.X, I 
> can delete the panel and add a dock as I wish. But the panel is there. 
> It works. It's user friendly. But if my taste is in docks, I can add one.
>
> And sure, I could just add Docky and shut up and be done about it, 
> right? My problem with that idea is the fact that the notification 
> system (when activated) takes up the bottom portion of the screen. 
> Even with huge Docky icons, whatever the notification system covers is 
> un-clickable in the dock. That's why I think the space in the top 
> panel could be better utilized for a dock-like window switcher. It'd 
> be such an intuitive thing to incorporate a feature like that with 
> Gnome Shell.
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnome-shell-list mailing list
> > gnome-shell-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Ack, sorry. I thought you meant the other kind of grid. Nevermind! My 
apologies. And yes, I'm not too fond of the grid either. It should be an 
option; I like categories personally.