Re: [Usability] Behavior of Minimizing Windows Violates Mental Model

[Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh pop jaring my>]

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Adam Williamson 
> <<mailto:awilliam redhat com>awilliam redhat com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 23:24 +0800, Allan Caeg wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > Just wanted to share a personal experience with GNOME Shell. One of
> > its new and unique attributes is not having the window list or any
> > sort of persistent widget that shows running apps or opened windows.
> > This has benefits, in theory, like helping the user focus on the
> > foreground task.

I haven't used it, but from what you say, that seems to assume that 
the user's Real World Task is limited to just using one foreground 
window, and does not involve using multiple windows. This may be true 
for most users, but not all. It's a good idea to make a GUI that's 
great for such users, but I don't see how this "new and unique 
attribute" really adds much value to them while it reduces value for 
the other users.

Just make sure those widgets don't move or change unnecessarily or 
are too ugly/gaudy, and most people will stop perceiving them, until 
they need to.

Yes, some might still get distracted by "persistent widgets", but 
arguably stuff outside and beyond the screen would distract them too, 
squirrels for instance ;).

> > It's just worth noting that one of its potential downsides is it
> > violates the user's mental model, which makes it undesirable, even if
> > it *may* help increase productivity. With a window list, it's clear to
> > the user where the window goes when it's minimized and how to show it
> > again. In GNOME Shell, the only clear way to tell if a window is
> > minimized is to check if it can't be seen in the workspace, but it's
> > shown in the Overview or Window Switcher (alt+tab). Teling which
> > windows are minimized or not may not have real benefits, but it may be
> > too disorienting for users.
>
> I agree - I rarely minimize windows so it's not really an issue for me,
> but when I have done it in GNOME shell (usually accidentally), it does
> feel a little odd.

If in order to perform your Real World Task you need to rapidly 
switch amongst many GNOME tasks, then it does not help to move stuff 
about in harder to predict ways, for no good reason[1]. You need 
stuff to stay where they are, so that you can easily and quickly use 
them if necessary.

Lastly:
1) Any half-baked "Desktop GUI" can seem good if it only has to help 
people handle a few tasks/windows, just like any half-baked OS can 
seem good when "juggling" just a few tasks.
2) After so many decades a "Desktop GUI" should be better than 
"screen" in rapid/multi "window" management. I don't think it is 
impossible to make a GUI that's friendly to "new" users while being 
more powerful than "screen".

Note: I'm not saying screen is the best, far from it, I hope people 
start aiming way higher soon.

Regards,
Link.

[1] When I last checked, if you expand the "taskbar" so that it 
becomes multirow, both GNOME and KDE sort tasks buttons from top to 
bottom then left to right. This is bad since closing one button will 
cause all buttons to the right of the closed button to change 
positions. In contrast, Windows sorts from left to right then top to 
bottom, so only the buttons at the edges are affected in such a 
scenario. With Windows 7 task buttons can also be sorted by 
applications and applications can be "pinned", this is helpful for 
helping people keep track of windows.