Comments on: Notes on the Future of GNOME: Problems and Questions http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/ Lucas Rocha Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:12:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Secrecy. Bwahaha! http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-826 Secrecy. Bwahaha! Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:20:37 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-826 [...] I admit it. I have been updating my PGO-feed far too many times in the hope that Vincent or Lucas posted some news about their mysterious Gnome3-document (or maybe I am not allowed to say Gnome [...] [...] I admit it. I have been updating my PGO-feed far too many times in the hope that Vincent or Lucas posted some news about their mysterious Gnome3-document (or maybe I am not allowed to say Gnome [...]

]]> By: Bob http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-825 Bob Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:09:35 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-825 Hi, It it sad, but the problem that both GNOME and KDE face every day and that nobody notices is how inconsustent the GUI is in both cases. Buttons too big, captions too small, text not well formatted, windows that can be resized at any time and that often reveal elements hidden outside the visible area, dropdown menus that do not keep the focus on... I always preferred the slickness of GNOME, and I do not like MS windows GUI very much, but even if it is ugly and visually obsolete at least it is visually balanced. Unfortunately I had the idea of buying also a Mac and after a couple of weeks with OSX GUI going bacj to GNOMEo r to KDE it is like jumping 15 years in the past. So first at all I would focus on how all the GUI elements appear on the screen, then I would start thinging about evolving. Regards Hi,

It it sad, but the problem that both GNOME and KDE face every day and that nobody notices is how inconsustent the GUI is in both cases.

Buttons too big, captions too small, text not well formatted, windows that can be resized at any time and that often reveal elements hidden outside the visible area, dropdown menus that do not keep the focus on…

I always preferred the slickness of GNOME, and I do not like MS windows GUI very much, but even if it is ugly and visually obsolete at least it is visually balanced.

Unfortunately I had the idea of buying also a Mac and after a couple of weeks with OSX GUI going bacj to GNOMEo r to KDE it is like jumping 15 years in the past.

So first at all I would focus on how all the GUI elements appear on the screen, then I would start thinging about evolving.

Regards

]]> By: Dries Desmet http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-824 Dries Desmet Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:39:44 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-824 Interesting article if only to show that gnome developers are in fact not in an ivory tower this day and age. Whilst reading this ran through my mind: - As a reference, how far away is qt4 from your audience, position and process paradigms? I'm not voting for qt4 at all, but since we are talking paradigms, we could at least point out what's good and not so good in other api's. - It is true that distro do quite some work to adapt their paradigms to the gnome modules. Recently, Mark Shuttleworth attempted to get the different distro's more in line release cycle wise with gnome. This could be interpreted as trying to get back closer to gnome core components and join forces. - On position and choosing a 'default' app: I'm having a hard time choosing even a default gnome IDE or ui designer, and shouldn't that be a core component (if audience==developer)? So not sure if there needs to be a default music player (personally I would like that, but don't want to go political and waste effort this way), but if gnome wants to be a 'framework' what wrong could it do in including a default ide, ui designer, documentation, programming workflow. How many qt apps are not designed in qt designer? How many os x apps are not using XCode? Mono as a frameworks leaves a better taste in the mouth than gnome core development, is my feeling. Congratulations on the article. It's more streamlined than my comment. Well done. Interesting article if only to show that gnome developers are in fact not in an ivory tower this day and age.
Whilst reading this ran through my mind:
– As a reference, how far away is qt4 from your audience, position and process paradigms? I’m not voting for qt4 at all, but since we are talking paradigms, we could at least point out what’s good and not so good in other api’s.
- It is true that distro do quite some work to adapt their paradigms to the gnome modules. Recently, Mark Shuttleworth attempted to get the different distro’s more in line release cycle wise with gnome. This could be interpreted as trying to get back closer to gnome core components and join forces.
- On position and choosing a ‘default’ app: I’m having a hard time choosing even a default gnome IDE or ui designer, and shouldn’t that be a core component (if audience==developer)? So not sure if there needs to be a default music player (personally I would like that, but don’t want to go political and waste effort this way), but if gnome wants to be a ‘framework’ what wrong could it do in including a default ide, ui designer, documentation, programming workflow. How many qt apps are not designed in qt designer? How many os x apps are not using XCode?
Mono as a frameworks leaves a better taste in the mouth than gnome core development, is my feeling.

Congratulations on the article. It’s more streamlined than my comment. Well done.

]]> By: Mike http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-823 Mike Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:50:59 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-823 incredibly well written and thought out. looking forward to your next post!! Hope you and the others you're speaking for can help make these ideas a reality. incredibly well written and thought out. looking forward to your next post!! Hope you and the others you’re speaking for can help make these ideas a reality.

]]> By: Mats Taraldsvik http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-822 Mats Taraldsvik Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:20:10 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-822 @Luke: But will a 3D environment inside another 3D environment ( / Real world ) be more lucid? I like e.g MacSlow's lowfat, but I'm not sure everything should be represented in three dimensions. @Luke: But will a 3D environment inside another 3D environment ( / Real world ) be more lucid? I like e.g MacSlow’s lowfat, but I’m not sure everything should be represented in three dimensions.

]]> By: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-821 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:23:04 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-821 lucas, hi, saw your post on advogato. i've mentioned the problem of the desktop metaphor a number of times, and the fact that even a 600mhz ULV Pentium M with an intel extreme 815 graphics chipset is capable of doing beryl desktop (default settings)... so why are we still stuck with the "desktop" instead of an "office"? in a real office, you don't have the "filing cabinet" on the "desk top", you have it on the floor. in a real office, you don't have the "calendar" - the one with the nude ladies - on the "desk top", you have it on the wall. 3D graphics is pretty trivial these days, so why are we stuck with such awful metaphors? especially now that COMPOSITE is part of Xorg, it should be trivial to write a simple 3D desktop demo - one where the applications are splattered onto simple 3D surfaces. lucas, hi, saw your post on advogato.

i’ve mentioned the problem of the desktop metaphor a number of times, and the fact that even a 600mhz ULV Pentium M with an intel extreme 815 graphics chipset is capable of doing beryl desktop (default settings)… so why are we still stuck with the “desktop” instead of an “office”?

in a real office, you don’t have the “filing cabinet” on the “desk top”, you have it on the floor.

in a real office, you don’t have the “calendar” – the one with the nude ladies – on the “desk top”, you have it on the wall.

3D graphics is pretty trivial these days, so why are we stuck with such awful metaphors?

especially now that COMPOSITE is part of Xorg, it should be trivial to write a simple 3D desktop demo – one where the applications are splattered onto simple 3D surfaces.

]]> By: Lucas Rocha http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-820 Lucas Rocha Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:56:10 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-820 @Thorsten, you're right about having good defaults. I should have made it more clear in the post. The idea is not to deliver only a platform. That's what I meant with "reference products" (the "defaults"). @Thorsten, you’re right about having good defaults. I should have made it more clear in the post. The idea is not to deliver only a platform. That’s what I meant with “reference products” (the “defaults”).

]]> By: Thorsten Wilms http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-819 Thorsten Wilms Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:58:02 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-819 I like the platform idea. You will still have to set defaults, though. Please avoid the word "intuitive" in UI related discussions. What seems intuitive is quite subjective; it relies strongly on prior experience. Something can seem intuitive to a group of people while being ineffecient and hard to learn to new users. (And no, not even the nipple provides a truely intuitive interface, proper use has to be learned.) Instead (or additionally) to defining users / an audience, activity-centered design should be considered: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/human-centered.html I like the platform idea. You will still have to set defaults, though.

Please avoid the word “intuitive” in UI related discussions. What seems intuitive is quite subjective; it relies strongly on prior experience. Something can seem intuitive to a group of people while being ineffecient and hard to learn to new users. (And no, not even the nipple provides a truely intuitive interface, proper use has to be learned.)

Instead (or additionally) to defining users / an audience, activity-centered design should be considered:
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/human-centered.html

]]> By: John Nilsson http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-818 John Nilsson Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:20:58 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-818 When defining users how about also defining exact use cases to focus GNOME-bundles around? That is define a couple of GNOME-distributions with defined users and use cases. In each distribution a set of applications and other software is chosen to serve that use case. Development is then focused on making that specific bundle the best possible solution for that user and use case. F.ex. one distribution could be focused on single person startups in the service sector. The specific needs probably involves your typical CRM/Project management which I think a healthy integration of Evolution, Openoffice and some project management utility could provide. The key thing is to get a dedicated organization with its associated leaders around each specific distribution and have those organizations focus on their specific users and use cases. GNOME would thus be a collection of such distributions. When defining users how about also defining exact use cases to focus GNOME-bundles around?

That is define a couple of GNOME-distributions with defined users and use cases. In each distribution a set of applications and other software is chosen to serve that use case. Development is then focused on making that specific bundle the best possible solution for that user and use case.

F.ex. one distribution could be focused on single person startups in the service sector. The specific needs probably involves your typical CRM/Project management which I think a healthy integration of Evolution, Openoffice and some project management utility could provide.

The key thing is to get a dedicated organization with its associated leaders around each specific distribution and have those organizations focus on their specific users and use cases.

GNOME would thus be a collection of such distributions.

]]> By: brunobol http://lucasr.org/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-817 brunobol Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:46:24 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/lucasr/2008/06/15/notes-on-the-future-of-gnome-problems-and-questions/#comment-817 Great, Lucas!!! I read it. You're our hero!!! "Um dia vou ser assim" ;) Great, Lucas!!!
I read it. You’re our hero!!!
“Um dia vou ser assim” ;)

]]>