Re: remove interface tab (please don't)

[leftyfb <leftyfb left-click org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Absolutely not. The only customization that Linux (or, I assume you
> mean, open source software) demands is that source code be available
> for people to tinker with. If you look around, you'll find that many
> respectable platforms which use Linux (Maemo, Palm WebOS, Android)
> forego trivial options like this to obtain a more cohesive experience,
> especially with their respective ecosystems of third party
> applications.

You're talking about mobile platforms built for a tiny screen and 1 -3
buttons. Is that where gnome is focusing their user experience on?
Limited functionality and customizability? No thanks. I prefer my
computer to act like a computer and not a cellphone or ipod.

> If you're talking about consistency and applications supporting your
> preferred approach (smaller toolbars), this change is absolutely an
> improvement. It's a decisive step, yes, but it means that every
> installation of the GNOME desktop can be expected (with rare
> exception) to have this behaviour. Applications can then be designed
> towards that behaviour, producing a stronger experience for our users.
> It's similar to what the HIG does for us, really.

"Improvement"?
Removing polish and customizablity is an improvement?

"Stronger experience for our users"?
Are we even talking about the same thing here?

On 02/21/2010 10:05 PM, Dylan McCall wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:14 PM, DARKGuy . <dark guy 2008 gmail com> wrote:
>> I agree on keeping the Interface tab. I always used it on first gnome
>> installs to remove the text under the icons and make the toolbars more
>> compact - windows-like. I hate big toolbars anyways... it kind of
>> makes you feel that your current monitor isn't using the screen space
>> as --efficiently-- as windows or mac...
> 
> It may interest you to know that text _beside_ icons (as opposed to
> below) has been the default since 2.26.
> 
>> I always say: Don't force settings on the user, or at least if you
>> have to, give them choice. Linux should be customizable, right?
> 
> Absolutely not. The only customization that Linux (or, I assume you
> mean, open source software) demands is that source code be available
> for people to tinker with. If you look around, you'll find that many
> respectable platforms which use Linux (Maemo, Palm WebOS, Android)
> forego trivial options like this to obtain a more cohesive experience,
> especially with their respective ecosystems of third party
> applications.
> 
>> ... it makes no sense to spend time hacking something that was working
>> before. Why not hack to --improve-- something?. It's pointless to hack
>> to improve something that was previously improved.
> 
> If you're talking about consistency and applications supporting your
> preferred approach (smaller toolbars), this change is absolutely an
> improvement. It's a decisive step, yes, but it means that every
> installation of the GNOME desktop can be expected (with rare
> exception) to have this behaviour. Applications can then be designed
> towards that behaviour, producing a stronger experience for our users.
> It's similar to what the HIG does for us, really.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dylan
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-list mailing list
> gnome-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLgffuAAoJEO6Yy60Eea9++TkH/R8ms3l/5M1zHRpqi0mt6vfo
XGWDPG/OumAVwXVkNjv/N1U29D+tEF3GZkwdbXcgZQGntgAtDGM4xcDRLDfL3fej
kzR3PqBHy8bGP6amrVqA3GFgBvuef4pSvRn4SyO5YD7Xtwh9YuY3Klgwa6BEkEsq
OKH0n85vi2tqD0becz24bPpzq2x0xs23DPQasF0jNjfnKNoQfhcJYNBv60QgOADZ
CrHxVir5JSR6sDTtGUNjXOIJlBKR0YzF2SVnScf/6w7me18FJUNeAlQFAMu/7AQw
ssJF3PW5+9i3WMyVqX9SUHJUs90CqaXzkcySd60umy8XxxjfzQyZxjJ+JFwMWww=
=Swdx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----