Re: Thumbs up!

[Bojan Smojver <bojan rexursive com>]

On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:07 +0200, David Prieto wrote:
> Bojan,
> 
>  Both of which are different from Gnome 2 taskbar. I am not advocating
> > taskbar in particular (nor do I use it often). Anyway, see below.
> 
> 
> They are not different in that they use tiny, randomly-placed (in that they
> don't reflect the window's actual placement) items to represent windows.
> THAT they have in common. Is that true, or isn't it?

Somewhat.

In Gnome 2, each open app is a box on a taskbar. In Windows 7, that box
also has window representations once you get over it, so you can see
what is in each window. So, that's visually different. I can't remember
what Mac has right now (my daughter is on her Mac now, so I can't
check), but I think the dock icon has an indication of the app running
or something.

> > What I would agree with is that workplace management has to make windows
> > bigger then current Gnome 2 switcher.
> 
> 
> Please don't stray.

Wow, being pulled over by stray police, eh? ;-)

>  You said that "people remember things by shape, size and
> position". I replied that based on that, locating a window on the Overview
> (similar size, similar location) is easier than locating it on a taskbar or
> on a dock (tiny items, random location), be it Gnome2's, Windows' or OSX's.
> 
> Do you agree with that, or don't you?

Not necessarily.

Once you reposition windows with expose, they are not easily
recognisable as the ones you are normally seeing in your original view.
That's the problem with expose - that's why you only use it when you get
in trouble with clutter.

So, in some cases a smart task bar like Windows 7 may be easier. Or just
about the same as expose.

What I'm saying is that Gnome has workplaces. So, we just need to make
them better in the switcher. And windows will stay where they are, they
will be the same size (proportionally), so finding/moving them to
another workplace will be easier. If they are cluttered, there is
expose.

> > If you have a lot of windows behind one another, this is where things like
> > expose _are_ actually useful. Or are smarter taskbar.
> >
> 
> Well, here comes the news. In all other situations, in order to select a
> partially hidden window, neither the Overview nor the Taskbar are necessary
> because you can just click the part that's shown.
> 
> So, basically, what you're saying is that in the only case where they ARE
> necessary, the Overview does a better job than a tasklisk, or a dock, or
> call it what you will.
> 
> Can we agree about that and move to your other points?

In which case overview is reduced to expose. But, overview is not expose
- it has additional things in it - things that should be elsewhere.

For me to go and pick a new application to run, I have to endure the
expose, which I don't want/need to endure.

If I get into the overview and there are no overlapping windows, I still
see expose view. Which, again, I have to endure.

If I want to move my windows to another workplace by dragging, I again
have to endure expose. And I don't really know where my window will end
up on another workspace, because I'll have to adjust it later.

If I want to find hidden windows, I can then use expose. Which is then
overview, minus the workspaces and apps.

-- 
Bojan