[Usability] Integration does not necessarily mean bloat [was Re: Workspaces]

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Daniel Borgmann wrote:

> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:56:24 +0200
> From: Daniel Borgmann <daniel borgmann gmail com>
> To: Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>
> Cc: usability gnome org
> Subject: Re: Workspaces [Re: [Usability] nautilus, panel,
>      and metacity not acting as if the desktop was a single entity]
>
> On 7/12/05, Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie> wrote:
> > I feel workspaces compensate for, distract from and otherwise disguise
> > bigger problems.
>
> I know what you mean, but I don't think this is entirely the case. In
> essence, workspaces are not really different from using an additional
> desk or another monitor. Often I don't want to mix my stuff at one
> place and appreciate the extra space. The big advantage of virtual
> space is, that it's theoretically unlimited. Workspaces allow you to
> make use of some of this unlimited space. Of course this is not as
> good as a zooming interface, but certainly better than restraining
> every user to the space of his/her physical screen.
>
> > If you have so many windows open that you feel
> > workspaces are necessary then I must start asking questions like are more
> > batch processing and automation tools needed?.
>
> No, this does not relate at all to my use of workspaces.
>
> >  I would be asking if
> > better window management is needed for certain applications.
>
> Nobody can answer this question until better designs for window
> management are known. Besides of the zooming interface, I'm not aware
> of any that would eliminate my need for multiple workspaces.
>
> > I would be
> > wondering if better application integration and interoperability would
> > save you from needing so many different tools left open.
>
> Absolutely not, quite the opposite.

It is a shame people assume "all in one" bloated and complicated
applicationswhen I say integration.  Products can be well intergrated but
still seperable.  Integration does not necessarily mean bloated or
cluttered.  An all in one application is the sloppy mononlithic way to do
integration not the only way.

If it were easier to jump from one application to another user might not
feel the need to leave an application open.  Even something as simple as
allowing Eog to jump to the GIMP would integrate the two application
without any bloat.

Having your spreadsheet and wordprocessor better integrated doesn't mean
creating a single application that does both task.  It means doing things
like allowing you to jump to your spreadsheet, edit the spreadsheet
fragement (as if it were an ordinary standalone document) and when you
save and close have those changes propogate back to your Word Processor.

> I want to get away from integrated all-in-one tools and rather use my
> desktop as the "IDE", with many tools interoperating with each other.

Interoperability is one thing, integration is another level on top.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org