Re: [Usability] Running gnome-terminal as a desktop background

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Hynek Hanke wrote:

> > For what it is worth I dont use the desktop icons much either but I do
> > have quite a lot of icons on my panel instead.
>
> That's what I do too.

I have also played around with Matchbox Gnome.  Although it is intended
for a handheld device there is nothing stopping you from running it on an
ordinary desktop (and it was included with Garnome).  What it does is use
the whole desktop space to show the applications listed in the main menu
which I think is a pretty interesting concept but maybe that is just me.

> > I think we have serious problems if a user feels the need to resort to the
> > command line on a regular basis.  I firmly believe a Desktop has failed if
> > you need to use the command line for ordinary use.
>
> At least in my case it is not that I *have to* use the command line
> because what I want to do is impossible in the desktop.

> It's just a way of working that I prefer.

Okay I'm glad we are clear on that.

> You ask what do I use command line for. Well, for example
>
> cd /usr/share/doc/devilspie/examples/
> cp sample-config.xml ~/.config
> cd
> emacs .config
>
> for me as a fast typist, used to work with keyboard a lot,
> with the power of the Bash, this is much easier for me to type
> than to use any desktop file browser (although it's perfectly
> possible to do it there).
>
> It's a matter of convenience, not necessity.

If you were doing similar tasks repeatedly you would create aliases for
them and scripts.  On the desktop you can create shortcuts but in most
cases we dont really have any equivalent to scripting/automating/recording
 common desktop tasks.  I hope we will get there some day.

If you were determined not to use the desktop there are probably ways most
tasks can be streamlined or bespoke application for batch processing.

> Why do you think that doing things with menus/icons/dialogs is
> definitely superior to doing things in command line?

I understand you are happy to use the command line but I always resented
having to learn it (and relearn it and relearn it) and I would never
expect ordinary users to want or need to learn it anymore than most people
would want to learn how to program their video recorder or washing
machine.

I'm not saying either is superior, both approaches have their value but I
am thinking of the Gnome Desktop a point and click enviroment for ordinary
users rather than a developer workstation with just enough of a window
manager to run a whole load of terminals.

> I think these are two parallel approaches to how to do things and each
> of them might be better suited to do certain things for certain users.
> Both of them are very powerful!

I am very much aware of the power and efficiency of the terminal ... once
you invest the effort to learn it.  It is all about the learning curve,
and believe me it is a significant investment.

Familarity breeds contempt.  I have seen infrequent users of computers who
effectively must relearn how to use Office software each time they use a
computer.  I see it myself in my own work as I cannot remember all the
command line applications available or the obscure arguements I might only
need very rarely and must essentially relearn for the occassions I use
them.  Perhaps in your own experience you have found a way that works and
keep doing something the hard way (at least for a while) rather relearning
a completely new and better way you know would probably save you time in
the long run.

I relectanly learned the command line because usability of the Desktop was
poor and ineffecient at the time and it would be worth the effort in the
long run but I would have preferred if I the desktop was so easy to use I
never had to.

> What I want to do is not to abandong Gnome and return to the kernel
> terminal. I want to nicely integrate both of these working methods
> so that I could skip between them smoothly.

I hope gnome applications provide consistent command line arguements and
make this easier for you.  Extensions to nautilus which allow you to open
a terminal in the current working directory seem like a pretty good idea
to me.  I am sure there are many more features and power toys like this
which could make your work easier but I hope you can agree they are not to
everyones taste and the average user should not need to know about them to
get the job done.

> > Things should be at
> > least possible to do without the terminal and we can then gradually look
> > at making them more efficient and finding ways to streamline the workflow.
>
> I don't recommend to reinvent the wheel. For some users, command line
> is just the ideal approach at solving things (of course I welcome any
> usability improvements to command line and terminals too!). I don't
> understand why anybody would want to entirely abandon this user
> interface. Make it possible to easily integrate it instead.

Part of what I'm saying is that users want a way to automate tasks and at
the moment the terminal is the best way to do that and worth learning if
you are a regular computer user.  If someday we can provide full
macro-recording it would bring this kind of power and flexibility to a
much wider range of users and you never know the more techincal users
might like it too.  I suppose I could draw an analogy with configuration
tools, sure you can edit a config file with a text editor but if you had a
nice graphical console with tools to manage a whole network of computers
at once in an efficient and reliable way you would probably use it.

> > I didn't really answer your question but I hope I have helped you get on
> > the right track and I would appreciate if you could tell us a little more
> > about the tasks you absolutely need the terminal for so that perhaps we
> > could improve them in a more general way for people who would really
> > prefer not to use the terminal (which would be me actually).
>
> Another group of people who might, for very understandable reasons,
> prefer to use terminal extensively are certain kinds of disabled people.

True but I hope that would never be used as a reason not make Gnome more
accessible (not that you were implying that or anything like it).

> BTW. Thank you and the others for all the advices so far.

Best of luck, I hope you can get gnome to work for you too just the way
you want it.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

Inkscape http://inkscape.org
Abiword http://www.abisource.com
Dia http://gnome.org/projects/dia/
Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org

Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/