Gnome 2.4 Release (d)

chendo writes "Gnome 2.4 will be released today. Here is the link to the article on Ars Technica. GNOME 2.4 is the result of quite a bit of work toward complying with the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines (HIG), which mainly focus on user interface consistency and predictability. This release has also undergone some general polish, and it can finally be said that the GNOME 2 platform has achieved maturity with this release. The Epiphany web browser, a major new component of GNOME, also makes its debut with this release. (From Footnotes)"

Comments

Re:Still major usability issues...

[mccalli]

2) Taskbar doesn't reflect order that programs were started in. It inserts new buttons at random positions.

Disclaimer: Haven't used pure Gnome in quite a while, perhaps some of the points below have been handled by now.

I hate the fact that the Windows taskbar reflects the order in which the apps are launched and then cannot be changed. If you're going to have a taskbar interface, then fair enough chronological order seems a sensible default. However once launched, I really want to be able to drag that indication to whatever position I want in the taskbar.

For example, at work on my NT4 box I have a standard set of apps open most times. They are Notes (ugh), two Firebird windows, Putty and a Remote desktop connection. Apps after that can come and go, but I want those apps always in the same place so I don't have to hunt for them later.

I'm also an OS X user, and although I'm aware of criticism of the dock there's certainly one thing to be said for it - your most frequenctly used applications always appear in the same place, both for launching and for bringing to the front.

As a quick aside - anyone else remember the Apple Human Interface Guidlines circa System 7-era, incorporating the Principle of Muscular Remembrance? The idea is that important stuff is always in the same place, every time, so that the user doesn't even have to conciously think about where to find things. It's the reason Macs have a single menu bar, at the top of the screen. It seems to me to also be a key thought behind the dock.

Cheers,
Ian

GNOME 2

[nutshell42]

From the article:

Unlike some other browsers, in Epiphany you will not find half a dozen ways to use tabs and manage cookies and bookmarks, as Epiphany is targeted towards the average user.

And IMHO that's the wrong approach. *Especially* for the less technically inclined it would be better to have as many different ways as possible to do something. If you look at usability studies they always say how the test persons all tried different things to do the required task and how half of them got stuck on the way and didn't know what to do. One thing Windows gets right is that there is always more than one way to reach your goal. (e.g. you can adjust the time by double clicking on the clock, by using the context menu of the clock, by using the control panel etc.)

Having one elegant solution is nice and appeals to the mathematician in us all but if you look at speech there are many different ways to express a thought, perhaps one is more elegant than the others but all may be correct and logical. (to go back to the clock example: user A thinks "I want to change the time, that should be possible by doing something with the clock thingy" but in user B's opinion it's "I want to change a setting, it should be in the control panel")

IMHO, GUIs should try to enable users to do things their way and therefore it's better to have as many approaches as possible for a task

jm2c

Re:GNOME 2

[Deusy]

You have both valid and invalid points.

One thing Windows gets right is that there is always more than one way to reach your goal.

Is 'tabbed browsing' a goal or a method? I'd suggest it's the latter. And methods should always be logical and consistent. By offering various unecessary preferences on how your tabs behave, you provide the user with a means to confuse themselves. However, if the most logical default method is used, then there is no confusion available to occur and the user finds it intuitive. If the method is not intuitive, then a different setting should be used.

As for multiple paths to reach all goals; it depends on the goal. The clock example is a good example of multiple logical paths to the one goal. Double clicking to activate, right clicking to bring up the contextual menu, and an appropriate entry in the control panel. These are all routes that a user might try to take to configure the time on their computer.

All logical routes should be available to any goal, but sometimes there is only one logical route. For instance, you would not want multiple ways to disable popups in Epiphany, just a simple entry in the preferences for Epiphany.

Do not confuse methods with goals, nor assume all goals have multiple intuitive pathways.

Great discussion of GUIs

[elliotj]

You gotta love Ars. The first few paragraphs describe in layman's terms why Windows and the Mac have consistent GUIs and why Linux does not. I hope the main drivers of Linux desktop adoption (the Gnomes, KDEs & Red Hats of the world) pay very close attention to the implications of this message. It's been said many times, but warrants repeating again: Linux desktop adoption is suffering from a lack of consistency across applications.

Re:Great discussion of GUIs

[ShadeARG]

Consistency between applications on Linux is a pipe dream, unfortunately for the near future. I'll explain why.

Different applications make use of different interface toolkits like GTK+, Qt, Tk, Swing, AWT, Xaw, Fltk, etc. Unless a container toolkit of some kind is developed (that supports GTK+ and Qt at the very least), this is going to be a major roadblock.

A better solution that would be amazingly helpful to Linux on the desktop is if KDE and Gnome could come together and tackle this as a team.

Re:Great discussion of GUIs

[vondo]

While I agree that consistency is very important, Windows is not very consistent either. Last time I looked, Windows Media Player (a MS product) has a very different interface (look and feel) than windows or IE. Plus there are all the 3rd party apps like WinAmp that are TOTALLY different. The monitoring/overclocking control for my motherboard tries to look like an console game pad.

Mac may be better. I haven't really used one in years.

Re:Gnome development outpacing KDE?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

KDE isnt doing much to their interface lately, although we can blame Xfree86 for not finishing up the SVG stuff, KDE is getting left in Gnomes dust right now.

I would love to hear your rationale for saying that. How has Gnome surpassed KDE? How has KDE's interface grown stagnant? I agree with the SVG comment part, but that's not KDE's "fault" (not that it's anyones "fault", but...). I can be 100% honest when I say: There is nothing major not offered in KDE that makes me even think of it as growing stagnant, and certainly not with the 3.2 release in the works.

(I'm not trying to start a war, there's good things about Gnome as well, I just prefer KDE and would like to hear why you feel that it's getting "left in Gnomes dust right now")

Re:Browsers...

[reynaert]

Hmmmm... maybe this is why Microsoft does exactly the same thing with Windows..... Nah. It must be because they are "evil".

Because you can't get rid of Internet Explorer in Windows. If you don't like Epiphany, you can delete it and use Firebird or Konqueror or whatever instead, and Gnome will keep working.

Try to install XP without IE.

Re:Another freaking browser?

[Telex4]

You obviously didn't bother to read why Epiphany started, and why it is being included in GNOME.

Mozilla, Firebird and Galleon are all good browsers, but none of them currently conform with GNOME's HIG, and none want to.

To be a usable desktop environment, GNOME needs a browser that will integrate well with it, and so Epiphany fills this gap.

Honestly, does the user care if there are five different Mozilla derivatives, each for a different desktop environment, when they have the one they want installed? It won't confuse anyone, and it will provide choice to those who might want it.

Go back to your troll cave.

Got that right

[siskbc]

I'm sorry, but this is part of the force that is killing desktop acceptance in the open-source community. Everyone, their dog, and their 2-bit Saturday whore thinks they need to develop another web browser to share with the community. Suddenly we now have, what, 40ish browsers to choose from?

It's just chic. The problem is that everybody (being Gnome and KDE) won't be satisfied with a good operating environment. No, they have to do an entire user experience. In other words, they each want to be responsible for 95% of the graphical software used by any linux user. And that's just not rational. Case in point: KOffice, KDE's abominable attempt at an Office suite. As you say, why spend so much time making something that sucks so bad?

For what it's worth, never let it be said that open source developers are above reinventing the wheel. When profit is not a consideration, there's no boss to point you toward making things that have a market. We definitely need a greater degree of specialization.

I want to get the KDE and Gnome devs in two separate rooms, and lock them there until they swear never to make another browser, office suite, or useless widget again until they have the basic environment rock-solid.