Re: Usability studies

[Dokuro <dario soto gmail com>]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Cyril Arnaud <cyril arnaud gmail com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-shell-list mailing list
> gnome-shell-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
>
>

how about this little improvement, if the user has no applications
opened (or < than 2), instead of showing the window switcher, it
directly goes to the applications menu, this way the first aplicatin
would be "faster to discover" and to reach.

just an idea...

-- 
No necesito anti-virus por que uso un buen sistema GNU/Linux, libre y gratis!
I need no anti-virus, I use a GNU/Linux, a Free Operative System!
Je necesite pas de anti-virus, parce que j'utilice a GNU/Linux OS
completment libre!