Re: Usability studies

[Cyril Arnaud <cyril arnaud gmail com>]

I don't think that you can measure efficiency on the speed of launching an application. After all, we don't spend uor days launching app. We launch them , and we work with them (or play or whatever).
The efficiency has to be considered at a high level. In other words : is your work day easier or worse or about the same.
For me, since Gnome3 I use the workspaces efficiently (in the sens that I use them more and they allow me to categorize my work) and the "distraction free" environment is really enjoyable.
With less distraction I can focus on the work at hand.

So yes, launching an app in Gnome3 can be slower than on Gnome2 (especially if you add a launcher in the taskabr), but except for that particular point Gnome3 is far more efficient.


-Cyril

On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 14:10 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:19:54 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >While the article was... interesting... I found a few notable problems 
> >and false assumptions in it that disprove it's position:
> >
> >1. "But the danger of studying too much usability theory is not just the 
> >temptation to assume infallibility."
> >
> >Last I checked, GNOME never only allowed "one way" to use the desktop. 
> >Even with GNOME 3, which I admit isn't the most customizable thing in 
> >the world (though I don't mind), there's quite a few ways to use your 
> >desktop. You could go mouse-only, keyboard-only, keyboard+mouse... You 
>
> While mouse only is possible in Gnome 3, it is horribly inefficient.
>
> >2. "For example, in trying to make the launching of applications easier 
> >and freer of error, both eliminated the classic main menu in favor of 
> >displays that occupy the entire desktop. This arrangement does improve 
> >the launching of applications -- but it does so at the cost of obscuring 
> >the windows that are already open and requiring far more clicks and 
> >movements away from the active window than the main menu ever did."
> >
> >GNOME 3 still has an applications menu, as does Unity (I believe, never 
> >actually used it much). The problem with that assertion is that GNOME 3 
> >makes launching applications, dare I say, *faster*.
>
> Really?  In Windows 7 or Mac OS X all I have to do is click on the
> icon at the bottom of the screen in the task bar/dock (and I had Gnome
> 2 setup similarly).
>
> Gnome 3 I have to open up activies, then open the app.
>
> How is a 2 step process faster than a 1 step process?
>
> >Alt+F2, *and* the traditional menu. Also, I read a post on Planet GNOME 
> >a while ago that said how GNOME 2 solved some problems that the GNOME 2 
> >applications menu had on low-precision input devices, which can be read 
> >here:
>
> Wonderful, except I am not using a low-precision device.
>
> >Has this author even tried to use GNOME 3 for more than 10 (or 30) 
> >minutes? I'm sure that if he tried to learn how to use the desktop most 
> >efficiently, he would enjoy it at least slightly.
>
> I have, and as one who primarily uses the mouse have found it
> unusable.  It seems designed for those who use their keyboards for
> everything.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-shell-list mailing list
> gnome-shell-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list