Re: [Usability] GNOME3: Handling/Opening Documents (Website for Contributing Ideas?)

[Steven Garrity <stevelist silverorange com>]

Matthew Thomas wrote:
> Samuel Abels wrote:
> > Currently, most of the GNOME applications feel like, well,
> > applications. I thought about why, for example, a word processor
> > does not feel like what I believe it in essence should: A sheet of
> > paper. How could it be fixed? ... - When the application is loaded,
> > the document zooms to real size and the toolbar is attached. There
> > is no real window border and the controls are kept to a minimum.
> > Basically, the application IS the paper.
>
> Yes, that would make it possible to get rid of the "window"
> terminology altogether. There would be documents, and dialogs, and
> alerts (alas), and control panels, and toolboxes, and progress
> indicators, but ... no windows. (You could make all sorts of fun
> slogans about Gnome 3.0 being An End To Windows.)
>
> And since the title bar would be contiguous with the rest of the 
> "window" (hereafter a programmer-only term, unless a new name can be
>  found that will rewire programmers' mindsets appropriately),
> dragging *any* non-interactive part of the window could move the
> window. That would make arranging items on the screen considerably
> easier.
>
> > - Consequently, when the application is closed, it zooms out and 
> > becomes an icon again.
> >
> > * The above is implicitely also a plea for "Instant Save".
>
> Amen.

This is one of the more intriguing suggestions I've heard in a while.
In a weblog post (http://tieguy.org/blog/index.cgi/348), Luis Villa says:

> All of these areas have overlap, and all can happen to a certain
> extent within the 2.x framework. My gut sense is that 3.0 will happen
> when someone takes 2.x, beats one of these things onto 2.x, and says
> 'here is what I have done, here is how to build/play with it, I think
> this will be 3.0'. Note that this is not when someone talks about
> doing it- we can't really test, play, and argue until there is code,
> nor will the casually interested really get involved until there is
> something they can build and fight with. (Possibly 4.x is when we get
> two or three of the four...)
>
> I'd love for UI people to be designing this, and hacker teams to be
> tackling implementation in an organized fashion. That's the Best Way.
> But that's not happening; the only large coherent teams that exist
> are reasonably focused on more conservative, short-term needs. I'm
> becoming convinced that it is someone in a virtual garage somewhere
> that will actually make us act on 3.0 instead of continuing to
> discuss it endlessly- we may not adopt their exact solution, but
> it'll kick us (or someone more active who supercedes us) into action.

This (mpt's "beyond-windows" idea) sounds like the kind of thing that 
could be such an experimental fork. Matthew, you have developers at your 
beckon call now that you're at Canonical, right? ;-)

Thanks,
Steven Garrity