every time gnome tries to do things, it gets further away from the gnome i loved…
whilst there is a lot of interesting thinking here, it’s fundamentally trying to solve a problem I don’t want solved. I don’t want the pile of papers on my desk to never overlap, it’s already overlapping and hiding each other based on where my brain knows they are. It’s a mess, but it’s a mess my brain knows. it’s a structural mess.
leave my windows alone!
It may not be of interest to you personally, but the growing popularity of tiling window managers means there’s a lot of demand for this type of feature.
As long as they give the user the ability to opt out/in, what’s the harm in introducing it?
The key point we keep coming back to with this work is that, if we do add a new kind of window management to GNOME, it needs to be good enough to be the default. We don’t want to add yet another manual opt-in tool that doesn’t solve the problems the majority of people face.
In the end, this is an open platform and if they make something I don’t like, I’ll just use something else. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t voice what I see as a misstep forward taking gnome further from the kind of interface that made it so successful.
But they also say that the classic “floating” window state would still be one of the three options. In this case, this would effectively allow users to keep the “standard” behavior if they want.
Yeah, the “classic” mode. Let’s just say that I don’t believe them. Or that it won’t last long. I’ve been around long enough to see gnome change drasticly for the design teams pet projects, and usually flying in the face of what users actually ask for.
Which is really all I’m saying, this is another step by the gnome design team, away from the reasons that users originally picked gnome. You might be a fan of tiling window managers, but general users, especially ones who have picked gnome for potentially decades, generally won’t be.
Not going against Gnome here, but against your last sentence.
As long as they give the user the ability to opt out/in, what’s the harm in introducing it?
Pretty sure systemd did this with a lot of things and started removing things they just didn’t like. Can’t find the website I wanted to link, but it included a lot of reasons why systemd isn’t good (for example, binary logging. Why ?) “You can always opt out” doesn’t work in the real world ; people don’t care enough to switch. Why do you think google is the biggest search engine ? Mainly because it’s the default everywhere.
In this context I guess it doesn’t matter (and I couldn’t see myself using gnome, even if it has some good polish), it’s just that “you can always opt out” leaves a bad taste on my tongue.
it’s fundamentally trying to solve a problem I don’t want solved.
It’s trying to solve a problem that does not exist IMHO.
Their use cases are children and old people, which are users that probably use a single app at the time anyway.
It’s not true to say their use cases are just “children and old people”; they’re saying that while it’s more of a obstacle to ease-of-use in those groups, all users have to manually relocate poorly placed application windows.
If the OS can remove the need to do that, it improves workflow.
The year of the KDE desktop is finally upon us
If a new window doesn’t fit (e.g. because it wants to be maximized) it moves to its own workspace.
The worst possible thing, as expected from Gnome by now. That’s why I still use Unity7.
@cx0der
I really like this. Gnome could be just settling and following what other DEs already do, but instead it is inovating. This type of move will always piss off people that already have a set way of organizing themselves, but I am really interesting in testing new stuff. Can’t wait it see it implementedYeah not everybody likes it but I love how they try to go beyond the normal way of working and improve on it. Instead of sticking to existing ways which are ingrained into people.
deleted by creator
I don’t get why most comments here are so negative
Because I loved it and I don’t love it for some time now. Their experiment has brought me something I strongly dislike.
if GNOME no longer fits your needs, you can always switch to another desktop
And I did, but the squeaky wheel still gets the shit.
deleted by creator
I don’t get why most comments here are so negative. It’s Linux, if GNOME no longer fits your needs, you can always switch to another desktop. There are lots to choose from!
Which don’t mean that we cannot criticize GNOME while discussing 😉
I can agree that there could be a problem with too many windows on a desktop but the solution they propose is the worst possible one.
For a user it make no sense that when you add a window to the desktop (say open a terminal) all the other window move to other places (or you switch to another workspace entirely)
Aside the fact that usually I (and people in general) remember where a window is, the big problem is that I positioned the applications as I need and I want them to stay there because I need them that way, even when I add another one. It is my problem where to put the new window, and I will probably put it where I need it.
Put it that way: it would be a good idea if in a IDE every time you open a new panel, all the already open panels change their arrangement ?
It is just another case of “we know better than the user what the user needs” from the GNOME developers (remember when they remove the advanced option of the printers because “users would be confused” ?)
deleted by creator
No, but I think one should try something first and then criticise. Sometimes new stuff just has a learning curve because it is different to what you are used to, but after learning it, it turns out that you actually like it better.
Maybe, but then you should convince me that what I am going to try can be potentially better than what I already have. And the idea behind what GNOME are going to do is not that good. Then this is my idea, no problem if someone like it. btw, I am not a GNOME user anyway, so I could just say “who cares” 😀
Personally I actually hate having to manually re-arrange my windows. If a window manager managed to do this for me in an intuitive way, working on my PC would be more pleasant for me. That’s why I think that I might like GNOME’s new idea.
That’s fine. But to me the problem is that I normally put my windows how I need them (and I suppose I am not the only one) so a window manager that thinks it know better is a no start for me. Now, I accept if a window manager put a new window is a empty area, but the idea to move the other windows is just awful to me.
No, it is just another case of GNOME trying to improve the user experience on regular computers.
Problem is they are using the wrong users groups to make their decisions. They are saying that since older people and kids may be confused from the current behaviour then they must change it for everyone. I see two big problems here:
- they are underestimating one of their users group (the kids) which are much more smarter with a PC then they seem to think
- the other users group probably has not the problem since they already use just one app at the time
I would argue that there shouldn’t be two settings menus for printers. There should be one that is able to do all common tasks. So I agree with the decision to remove one of them, but I disagree with not offering essential settings (e. g. Sound Juicer lost the ability to specify compression ratio).
I would argue that I’d like that my OS allow me to use all the features of my hardware. I would have understood that they moved the least common used options to another dialog (to be open with a button or any other solutions, it does not matter) but I not accept that they just remove it “because users could be confused”. Fine, someone could be confused, but what about the users that are not confused and need to use the feature ?
Mosaic actually sounds pretty nice. Personally I don’t think it should be on by default but I really like the experimentation on this subject.
MacOS tries to solve the problem a different way with Stage Manager, and it does take some time to get used to but overall it’s very nice to use.
This is probably going to make me sound like a curmudgeon, but:
While most of us are used to this system and its quirks, that doesn’t mean it’s without problems. This is especially apparent when you do user research with people who are new to computing…
I don’t understand this thinking (1), and worse, the workflow described seems like it will just make things more confusing (2).
(1) Most tools humans have developed are not especially intuitive - you usually need someone to teach you at least the basics, and then you need to practice. Consider a driving a car, operating a sewing machine, a microwave… Even something “simple” like a hammer has features that need to be explained (“turn it around, and you can use the claw on the back to remove nails”).
(2) This seems like it just introduces more inconsistency. Right now, a new window opens on top, and you move it and size it however you need. This works for all windows. With the model described, windows sometimes float next to each other (but the arrangement is random), some times tile, and other times will open on a new workspace. And the tiling features get even more confusing - dragging one window over another causes them to tile, but what if I actually just want them to overlap?
I feel like this is just going to annoy anyone used to the current system and still require a learning curve for anyone new to computing.
I’ve used gnome 2 and 3, Unity, KDE 3, 4, and 5, and am on gnome 44 now - I actually think the current world is pretty good. I’d much rather see quarter tiling and gesture customization than a whole new window management paradigm.
Exactly, I don’t get how these people are supposed to be UI UX experts but don’t understand that inconsistent behaviour is a very fast way to confuse and break user trust.
Very excited to see where this will go. I don’t use gnome, but if it manages to become the perfect mix of TWM and the traditional floating layout, then this could be huge
