So have we finally come back to GNOME usability?

Post #234,369 by static 11/15/05 9:15:50 PM Reply	So have we finally come back to GNOME usability? And even then care needs to be taken by developers in what they actually decide to include; I don't see many people complaining that Firefox is "crippled" or "dumbed down", but they went through the same process GNOME is going through right now -- they had a huge, bloated, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink suite of applications, and pared it down to the feature set and options that most people want most of the time. Trouble is, they're turning people off of GNOME because of the features they are removing, as is evident by this thread. For the good of Linux, I hope they realize this before it's too late. For example: Nautilus is a great idea with severe problems in execution. Re-enabling the tree-view is difficult enough that you can see the Nautilus programmers don't want to provide this mode. Yet they do, probably because so many people obviously still want it! So what's the usability model again? Wade. "Insert crowbar. Apply force."
Post #234,426 by Another Scott 11/16/05 8:00:05 AM Reply	ObLRPD. Unless, y'know, EASY FONT CONFIGURATION is more important to you than freedom. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #234,615 by ubernostrum 11/16/05 11:01:33 PM Reply	You know, it's funny. Geeks fall all over themselves to condemn GNOME to the depths of hell for switching Nautilus to be spatial by default, and also fall all over themselves to switch to the Mac, which brought spatial file managers into the mainstream. \r\n\r\n And FWIW, most "average users" I've shown spatial Nautilus to have been a little bit reluctant at first, but then realized that for many common file-management tasks, spatial mode is extremely useful. It's only geeks with a near-autistic aversion to change who I've seen kickin up a huge ruckus about it. \r\n\r\n Also, it's kind of odd to see other people in this thread claiming that things are unusable unless they're configurable, and then have you come along and claim that putting an option in a preferences dialog increases difficulty. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #234,633 by altmann 11/17/05 4:10:38 AM Reply	Re: You know, it's funny. Do you remember when Mac OS X made its first public appearances? Spatial was gone. Dead. Finder was "just another app" according to Steve. The future was documents in the Finder, photos in iPhoto, and music in iTunes. It was existing Mac users (the ones that liked spatial at least) that cried and whined until Apple reimplemented a half-assed spatial mode that still isn't near the standards of the original while the non-spatial mode has undergone refinement and enhancement in every version. I also find it funny that some of the original developers of Nautilus (Andy Hertzfeld is the one that comes to mind) at Eazel were designers of the classic Mac OS, yet they didn't choose a spatial model for their new file manager. I wonder why that is. I'd like to see GNOME or one of it's corporate sponsors do some actual new research and see if a spatial desktop is still the best system for most users with today's data volumes rather than relying on decades old Apple research (done when Macs had a single 400k floppy drive) and one in depth article by spatial fan John Siracusa as they appear to have done. -- Chris Altmann
Post #234,754 by ubernostrum 11/17/05 6:27:21 PM Reply	I find it pretty handy. But then, unlike a lot of geeks, I actually tried it for a little while. I discovered that a lot of what I do actually is file management (moving groups of things around, creating new files and folders, transferring things back and forth -- spatial mode is wonderful with remote filesystems, since you have a source window and a destination window, and just drag and drop between) instead of file browsing, and thus spatial mode is a pretty big help. And if I don't want all those windows, I can either close all parent windows with a simple keyboard shortcut, or right-click on a folder and hit the "browse" option to get an old-style browser window. \r\n\r\n So I'd really like to see whether there's any solid evidence against spatial file managers, other than a bunch of whiny geeks who decided they didn't like it without ever giving it a shot. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #234,772 by static 11/17/05 9:03:35 PM Reply	I now see why you've been upsetting people in here. Also, it's kind of odd to see other people in this thread claiming that things are unusable unless they're configurable, and then have you come along and claim that putting an option in a preferences dialog increases difficulty. Please read a little more carefully. What I actually said was that the option that I wanted to change was hard to find. I did not say that providing the option made things harder. Not providing the option would have made things harder. The option should have been easier to find: that would reduce difficulty. And FWIW, most "average users" I've shown spatial Nautilus to have been a little bit reluctant at first, but then realized that for many common file-management tasks, spatial mode is extremely useful. It's only geeks with a near-autistic aversion to change who I've seen kickin up a huge ruckus about it. Some tasks. Let me say that again: Some tasks. I agree, spatial is good for some things. I disagree that all file-handling is easier with a spatial interface. In my experience, Nautilus doesn't do spatial all that well, in fact. I tried it. After a while, I went searching for the option to run in browser mode. Wade. "Insert crowbar. Apply force."

Welcome to IWETHEY!