Re: We want task bar back. Pretty please.

[Ryan Peters <sloshy45 sbcglobal net>]

On 05/21/2011 12:42 PM, Tim Murphy wrote:
> On 19 May 2011 05:01, Ryan Peters <sloshy45 sbcglobal net 
> <mailto:sloshy45 sbcglobal net>> wrote:
>
>     I'm sure that the development and design team would love to hear
>     some specific examples of how GNOME 3 is a regression. I've heard
>     a few before; launching several applications in succession, for
>     example, is slower in GNOME 3 than in GNOME 2 with panel
>     launchers, though this is overcome with an extension or simply
>     launching the applications on startup. Another regression that I
>     can think of off the top of my head is how the file manager/recent
>     documents list aren't quite as integrated as GNOME 2 was, though
>     these are things that are being worked on. The reason it seems
>     like so many complaints "fall on deaf ears" is that they have
>     already been discussed and the users making the complaints and
>     suggestions can't provide concrete examples of why their
>     suggestions are valid. As I've said, I've heard some good
>     suggestions. The most popular complaints, though, are invalid,
>     baseless, and without examples, as has been proven to death in
>     this mailing list many times over.
>
>
> Apparently they don't listen and repeat robotically, "use a hotkey" or 
> "you aren't giving it a chance".  You have heard ample complaints but 
> brush off every one of them. why bother to discuss?   I'm only 
> motivated to reply to this because I want to show how utterly 
> resistant you are.
...I'm sorry, but who's being robotic here? I've given examples of valid 
regressions and bugs (I believe). The devs/designers listen to every bug 
and regression report that they can find time for, and there are several 
things that will be fixed for 3.2. The reason we, as you say, "brush off 
every one of them" is because the most popular questions, concerns and 
suggestions have been discussed to the end of the world and back. We 
know for certain after many, many discussions that GNOME 3 is staying 
mostly the same. As I've said many times before, the popularity of a 
complaint *does not* make it any more or less valid, and there is no 
definite correlation; basic logic. "Right is right if nobody is right, 
wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong", as said by Archbishop Fulton J. 
Sheen. I'm not saying that there's "one true way to use the desktop", 
but I am saying that some things are more efficient and better than 
other things and that is a fact.
>     I admit that was a bad analogy (I should have thought of a more
>     solid one). Bicycles are cheaper than motorcycles and are used for
>     exercise, while motorcycles are used for quickly moving around.
>     The difference here is that GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 are meant to do
>     the same thing, which is not the case with this analogy, so it's a
>     bad one as I said, and I apologize. GNOME 3 aims to be better than
>     GNOME 2 at the same job (and in many areas it already is), so a
>     "what's good for you might not be good for me" argument isn't
>     really appropriate here.
>
> No it was a good analogy because it absolutely indicates the kind of 
> assumption that there UIs can be ranked on some single axis in order 
> of "superiority" and that all others are wrong to complain that what 
> they used is blown to bits or degraded in usefulness or accessibility 
> by a change that seeks other tradeoffs.  If you don't want complaints 
> then it's best to stick to your branding.  Create a new brand for a 
> new thing and don't disenfranchise the people who liked and use the 
> tradeoff balance that they have got.
>
> Prove your idea is better by convincing people and seeing them choose it.
I highly suggest you read the reply by Matthew Planchard (apparently 
titled "Re: gnome-shell-list Digest, Vol 31, Issue 89" by mistake, it 
seems). He gives a much better analogy than mine.

Also, does Apple still support the OS9 interface? If a lot of users of 
Apple software, when switching from OS9 to OSX, asked over and over for 
the desktop to behave the old way, should Apple have to listen to them? 
Of course not. For there to be innovation, stability and consistency in 
GNOME, we have to make decisions like, "is this really necessary?", or 
"is there a better way we can do this?". What you're describing leads to 
preference overload: including many useless and inefficient options and 
increasing the probability of bugs. For GNOME to move forward, we have 
to ditch the old way of using the desktop (though it, as of now, is not 
completely ditched). You can't run forward while staying in the same place.
>     There may be an answer to every query and it could possibly even
>     be an answer that would satisfy the people who are complaining but
>     even their "invalid" complaints are telling you that something is
>     not right.
>
>     And that something is that they often fail to provide evidence of
>     a regression, and many (but not all) complaints boil down to "I
>     want the old UI back because I'm used to it".
>
>
> That is to say, they are forced them to re-learn and cannot see the 
> benefit.  Moreover when one of them persists, there is always a 
> convenient answer that involves relearning with a small dose of "who 
> cares that it's a bit harder to do x".
Will you please stop this? I'm sorry, but you are refusing to give any 
good examples whatsoever of how it's harder to use the interface and 
this thread is going in circles because of it (which you blame on me, 
which isn't the case at all). You are just assuming that, because some 
people don't like it, that it *has* to be bad, when there are many, many 
happy GNOME 3 users that don't resort to fallback mode. Please do not 
respond to this until you stop repeating the same message over and over 
without examples. GNOME cannot move forward (for your definition of 
"forward") without solid evidence that it would be better to do so; 
seriously, how can anybody expect GNOME to change without proper 
reasoning behind it? It would be illogical to do otherwise.

The *only* potentially good reason I've heard for, say, wanting a window 
list, is that some users like using the mouse and don't want to have to 
use the keyboard. In some (not all) cases this is the fault of the user 
for not trying to use both of their hands, but in other cases, such as 
if the user has only one hand or rarely has two hands available, it can 
be worked around with an extension. There are many, many extensions that 
enable a GNOME 2-like experience (application menu, icons on the top 
panel, moving the clock, etc.) and if GNOME 3 *cannot possibly fit into 
a user's workflow*, some extensions can help remedy that.