On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:47:38 -0400 Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:32:12PM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote: > > So Gnome Shell is not for a good many of the people who had been > > using Gnome before that. > > > > YES! I don't know why more people don't realize this: GNOME 2 was a > mediocre interface for a lot of people. It COULD NOT be a good > interface for the same number of people, and there is NOTHING wrong > with them pruning their userbase to a subset which they can > adequately serve. > > > It is not good to counter a technical point with a personal attack, > > which is what you did. > > > > No I didn't. Sure looked like you did. Perhaps it not done with malice, let's go with that version. > > > Different workloads require different ways of working. In my case, > > there is not just one task that requires 100% of my attention. > > There is one big, long term task that can tolerate short > > interruptions, and several smaller ones. This is a perfectly normal > > situation. > > > > That doesn't mean GNOME shell did not meet the goal you quoted. It > means that goal contradicts your own goals. The goal was "let the > user focus on the current task." You want your focus less singularly > distributed. Serving you brings them further from, not closer to, the > goal as stated. That is actually not what I quoted. It is the part of the quote that your comment addressed. Here is my quote again: > >Makes it easy for users to focus on their current task and reduces > > distraction and interruption Gnome3 has a problem with the last one. Selecting a new (or an additional) application causes a major disruption. The switch to a different screen takes time, causes the user to re-focus their eyes and their attention. That's a serious context switch, given that the user isn't necessarily trying to do anything dramatic. Perhaps the Gnome3 way of thinking is that calling up an additional application constitutes starting a new task in the work flow, so that the big interruption happens anyway. I don't think that is a good assumption for the design of a DE. > > --CJD -- Bernd Stramm bernd.stramm@xxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
