----- Original Message ----- > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * Topicons: I understand that systray icons are not the way the GNOME > > > designers want things to work, but FAR too much software exists today > > > that relies on these icons. Shunting them to the message tray (pre > > > -3.16) or into a tiny little expansion box (post-3.16) or hiding them > > > entirely (Wayland) are not valid solutions for this software. Call it > > > legacy software if you wish, but not having a sensible compatibility > > > layer is harmful to users. > > > > The sensible compatibility layer is what you see. We don't want to > > encourage using a functionality that we've been trying to wean ourselves > > off for a number of years already. > > > > We can't keep on indulging applications that are designed like Winamp > > and ICQ circa 1998. > > > > There are alternative ways: > > https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/OS/MessageTray/Compatibility > > > > > Some of us *want* to be able to see our IM client, new mail indicator and > an easily accessible icon for controlling a music player *at a glance* (no > clicking, mouse movements or keypresses). And then a single click later an > action is performed. Also, it's a cross-desktop standard. > > I'm not saying that everyone wants that, but some of us do. And I think > enough of us want it that it could be better supported. And those of you can use the topicons extension, or whatever else. > > > * Window List: For many users attempting to locate the window they want > > > across a number of workstations, having the window list at the bottom > > > of the screen provides a very quick way to see what is on every > > > workspace. It's far easier to process a short line of information than > > > to 1) go into the Overview. 2) start paging through each workspace. 3) > > > scan the entire screen for the window that matches what you want. > > > > 1) Go into the overview > > 2) type the name of the app followed by enter > > or > > 2) click on the app's icon in the dock > > > > I assume this is a joke. You want to force me to do 3 different things > (which include switching between mouse and keyboard) instead of 1? Again, > *at a glance* I can see what I want, then I can immediately click directly > on it (or alt+tab to it, knowing that the window I want is already > available and I don't need to launch anything new). It's not a joke, it's 2 other ways of achieving what you wanted. > > Maybe GNOME Classic is a better option for this site? > > > > Yeah, probably. But it always felt like Classic was just a temporary > compatibility layer until everyone could be fully indoctrinated into doing > everything the One True Gnome Way. This sort of vocabulary grates me the wrong way. > > > > > * Top bar: Maybe show date in clock could live in the Date & Time > > > > > panel, where the 12/24 hour setting is. > > > > > > > > We already show it inside the menu, is that not enough? > > > > > > > > > > When someone wants to know the date, it's usually because they need to > > > use it for something (like signing a check, etc.) right now. Needing > > > more than a quick glance to the top of the screen is wasteful, > > > particularly since the GNOME design policy is to have none of that > > > space used for anything else. This is one of those cases where I cannot > > > figure out why the default doesn't simply include the date. I can > > > understand having seconds or week numbers in the tweak tool; those are > > > far less interesting. > > > > The full date (compared to the week day and time) would also distract from > > the more important parts. Do we need the year in the full date? Do we need > > the > > month? Feel free to file a bug about that, the default and/or having a > > visible > > configuration option can be discussed in its own bug. > > > > Are you really arguing that one part of the date is more or less important > (or distracting) to someone else? Or that this is difficult to implement > because different people have different priorities? Pick a default then > make the rest (easily) configurable. No. Because those questions are important. That's how those questions get answered, and we design GNOME. I'm not jesting, and those really are questions that need answering if we're going to make progress on this particular, small but important, pain point for you. > My whole thesis with all of my grumpy e-mails (that are largely ignored by > people with the capability to affect the change) is that everyone has a > different style of working and that Gnome is pushing pretty hard for a > one-size-fits-all approach, with some customization available through > hidden (and often undocumented) settings or a mishmash of randomly > collected extensions which may or may not work in 6 months. I'm not saying > that my way is better than anyone else's, but my way has worked well for me > for the past 15+ years (until everything broke with Gnome 3) and I > shouldn't have to justify every little feature that I use in order to > prevent that feature from being actively removed. If you're so tired, annoyed (as you tone notes) and blasé, maybe you want to use MATE. They do a fine GNOME 2 impression I've heard. The whole tone of this email is dismissive. "Why aren't the developers doing what I want (when what I want is how it used to be)". Well, software changes and, we started with a new base in GNOME 3, which we're iterating on. > I know I'm not alone: > some people grumble, some people suck it up and are silent, some people > move to other DEs. I'd love to be able to stick with Gnome since it's well > polished, well tested and well integrated with the rest of the system. > > -Adam Batkin > > -- > desktop mailing list > desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
