Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler <at> chello.at> writes: > I, for > one, want my computer to work the way I learned and interiorized a computer > works, any "innovative" interface destroys my automatisms and confuses me. > > I'm using Plasma Desktop with the Classic menu (not the default fancy > Kickoff), only 1 virtual desktop and only the default activity. I'm not actually arguing against certain features of gnome-shell based on what I'm used to. For instance, I am not disputing that having an apps menu that can be searched and is both flat and nested is useful. I'm not disputing that having one panel is better than two, because it takes less precious desktop space. I'm not disputing that having search in general is useful etc. What I'm disputing is usefulness of the overview. It brings nothing to the table - for anyone. Rationalisations for it as as funny as rationalisations against the taskbar. Usually we are told that users would be too confused by seeing workspaces/taskbar on the panel or some such. Who are these poor souls that get confused by having more visibility that also gives them the ability to directly navigate to where they want to go, while taking no more space from the desktop? With the taskbar, we've been told that it's not a true representation of running apps. The next piece of advice is usually that dash can also be used to switch tasks. I guess the dash is then a true representation of running apps. Probably because it's vertical. ;-) With overview, shell introduces unnecessary view switches (at least two for each "other" task), UI elements user never asked for etc. Just makes things less visible, more cumbersome and slower to use. Not to mention annoying. Just think of doing a cut and paste from one workspace to the next using shell and overview using nothing but GUI. I reckon you'd get a vertigo. :-) -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
