Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes: > > On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 13:55 +0000, JB wrote: > > JB <jb.1234abcd <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > > ... > > > > The business desktop end users are already puzzled when they see you coming > > to work on roller skates and singing "La La La" > > I'm sorry to have to explain this, but your mails are completely off > topic for this list, which is about testing - as in assuring the > functionality of - Fedora. It is not about the design of upstream > components of Fedora releases. The appropriate places to discuss the > design of GNOME 3 would be the GNOME design IRC channel or the GNOME > Shell mailing list, but as a bit of friendly advice, I would suggest > that what you take to those places should be concrete proposals backed > up with evidence or at least a consistent concept, not Grand > Pronouncements That They're Doing It All Wrong. Those don't go down so > well. > ... Adam, The Lady protests too much ... ;-) Fedora, by including GNOME 3 (or any other distro component) in its test release, is effectively *endorsing* it and expecting a feedback from users. So, Fedora test list is the right place to talk about it (yes, in addition to specific component's list as well). I expressed satisfaction about desktop responsiveness, which I ascribed possibly to GNOME 3's architecture (what's under the hood) as well. I may add that I liked the GUI graphics elements quality as well. I expressed dissatisfaction with menuing system. This is the "window" thru which users (most of them non technical) will access your entire Fedora (and later RH Enterprise) product's functionality. Fedora, by *edorsing* the above, made a mistake. It can be undone (yes, it is a test version of both products, Fedora and GNOME 3). You, as a Fedora QA representative, lovingly calling yourself Community Monkey with all that it implies, can and should collect and direct Fedora's and users/testers' concerns to GNOME 3 devs as well. You can quote us, if appropriate, when expressing your own views as well, regardless whether you (dis)agree with or are unsure of them. I find GNOME 3 menu system dysfunctional and an example of inexperience: - do not hide main menu (what used to be in GNOME 2) under artificial and unnecessary top menu (Activities, etc) and work spaces, panes, windows, etc. Juggling between menus and various active windows feels like being a clown in a circus and juggling balls - we like to watch a clown, and laugh, she makes us feel better, but we would not like to be her, strangely ... - do not split System functionality between System Settings under user icon's menu on the panel and System Tools under Activities - Applications (in particular if you include the former in the latter anyway) - do not reinvent/redefine the meanings of computing terms that have been used as a standard for the last 20-30 years by all operating systems and desktop environments. The proper way already reflected in Gnome 2, where you have separate top menu selections: Applications, System, etc. It was done for a good reason, according to computing terms meanings, intuitively. Applications menu is understood to be end-user programs (database, office suit, various helper applications, etc). System menu is understood to be system administration programs (configuration, administration, inclusive of all resources and users). - do not reinvent the wheel (menu system) that is already functional and accepted by end users, in particular if there is nothing of value or original in what you try to change or add I say once again: - restore the GNOME 2 menu system (Applications, System menu structure) - restore the GNOME 2 panel functionality (menu, current windows and discovery of their focus/need-user-attention, top/bottom placement configuration, etc) Deal ? Then off to the races :-) JB Maria Callas - Bellini - Norma - Casta Diva http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X816MOcmG8s -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
