Slashdot Mirror
GNOME To Lose Minimize, Maximize Buttons
An anonymous reader writes "When GNOME 3 arrives in a month, users might be surprised to see old UI staples 'minimize' and 'maximize' buttons gone and replaced by... nothing, in the case of minimizing, and either drag-up or double-click-titlebar for maximizing. Says Allan Day, GNOME Marketing Contractor: 'Without minimize, the GNOME 3 desktop is a more focused UI, and it is a UI that has a consistent high level of quality. Yes, moving to a minimiseless world might take a little getting used to for some, but the change makes sense and has clear benefits.' Some users already welcome the change, while others are in an uproar, swearing to wait for GNOME 3.2, switch to KDE or even Windows. What do you think? A better, simpler interface for new times, or a case of making something simpler than it should be?" I like minimize and maximize buttons, but I'll admit to liking the look of GNOME 3 .
The world becomes more and more like satire every day.
Deleted
Windows: focus groups, study users, never get it quite brilliant but basically give people what they want.
Apple: try to think about what will appeal to the user, deliver to maximise experience.
Gnome: WE DID COMP SCI IN COLLAGE AND HURD OF DON NORMAN THIS MAEKS US EXPURTS ON UI DESIGN. WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OR TRACK RECORD BUT U WANT WAT WE WANT. WE WANT TO MAKE A NAME 4 OURSELVES PLS ACCEPT ONE OF OUR IDEAS PLS!!!
For ubuntu to drop Gnome for Unity.
Blender And Linux Fan
Running Ubuntu 10.10 with a gnome-shell build from the git repository, and I have to say, I love the change. The minimize and maximize functions themselves are not gone; as the summary says, you can still double click the title bar to maximize. If you want to minimize, you can right-click the titlebar, then click minimize, or using ALT+F9.
I think this is a great design change. In Gnome 2.0 and less, like windows, you would minimize windows to make room/less clutter for windows you're actually using at that top. Now, instead of minimizing, a better method is to move it down a screen (right-click, move to workspace down), or zoom out to activity view, drag the screen from one screen to another. I find when I have a lot going on -- multiple browser windows, terminals, ftp client -- I use this a lot. It comes in handy being able to separate each website you're working on, each server, into it's own workspace, free from intrusions and other unrelated stuff.
Good job Gnome devs!
It seems like both the KDE and the GNOME folks have decided that they need to reinvent this whole desktop thing. KDE decided that icons are unnecessary, now GNOME deems maximize/minimize buttons unneeded.
Guess I'm lucky to use IceWM which still works the way it worked ten years ago - and I find that a good thing.
Real life is overrated.
Tested in the real world? No, not at all. But the developers have done a lot of reading of theoretical papers, so how could this go wrong?
Dragging is more stress-inducing to the hand than simply clicking mouse. we do countless minimize-maximize actions over the course of a normal workday.
I cant risk more potential for RSI, just because a few people think that is better to do so.
Excuse me gnome, but you are losing me.
Read radical news here
I like clean interfaces, but seriously, what does this help? It doesn't save space, the title bar is still there. Ignoring those buttons costs nothing, and replacing a button with a non-graphical multiple-action like double clicking isn't making an interface simpler, it's making it more complex. I understand the confusion about a minimize button with no taskbar, but this doesn't seem like a particularly well thought out design change. We got rid of feature X, so action Y isn't the same anymore. Okay, just get rid of it.
"Until the become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious"
When are we going to get an interface that is totally configurable to user preferences?
Someday, I'd love to sit down at a computer, point it to the URL where my interface preferences live, and presto - it instantly becomes the desktop I'm most familiar with.
Think of it as the GUI equivalent of setting your shell in .profile.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
I love Linux, but it's like everyone mutually agreed to abandon desktop sanity. KDE never met an option they didn't like, and Gnome never met one they did. I've used both extensively and recently but both make me spend more time cussing at the screen than I want to. I've held on to Linux (and FreeBSD) desktops for over a decade but I give up. It's not going to happen. I'm still going to work on a Unix all day, but I'm switching to the pretty one.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
This is such a drastic step of changing a UI paradign that's existed for the past 25+ years, and the only justifications I see for it are completely theoretical ones. Where's the usability testing by actual users to see if the theories hold any water?
Both sides can argue about what THEY think the user will prefer. The arguments can sound extrodinarily convincing, but what actually matters is how it performs in the real world with actual users. The solution to this problem seems to be "just put it in the next release and see if people revolt enough" rather than conducting actual controlled tests. IMO this is an extrodinarily flawed approach. A controlled test gives you non-biased opinions rather than political ones. This approach only seems to create a rift between the two opposing sides rather than finding out what's the best UI experience for the user.
AccountKiller
Minimize is removed because the concept doesn't make much sense in GNOME Shell. Minimize only has an intuitive function when used with a panel, while in GNOME Shell all it does is make the window disappear. The last time I tried GNOME Shell, minimizing did prove to be a frustrating habit acquired by years of having a panel.
Maximize on the other hand is removed because... well, because this is GNOME we are talking about...?
They're arguing that minimizing is an uncommon thing to do and also one that doesn't work well within the general interface ideas behind Gnome Shell. So minimizing is, basically, deprecated. OTOH, they're not at all saying that maximizing is infrequent. What they are saying is that you should maximize in other ways: primarily by dragging the window to the top edge (that'd be the same as in Win7; the mouse gesture might be different, I haven't really tried Gnome 3); double clicking the title bar will also still work, I assume. Mouse gestures are supposedly more "gratifying" or some similar thing that will undoubtedly get a lot of hate on Slashdot.
FWIW, it's true that I only really use the close button on the title bar. I rarely minimize windows, and I invariably maximize by double clicking the title bar.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
So they took a button on the screen you could click and turned into a keyboard shortcut, and one of the benefits listed in the article is that it is more touch-friendly.
It is nice that they took them out and used that space for nothing. I'm not sure how replacing useful buttons with more pixels that do nothing and convey no information helps.
Another argument given is that there's no dock or windows list to minimize to, but if you want to switch to a different window, you go to the overview, which is exactly like a windows list or dock, but less convenient.
Reading Owens explanation was painful. He starts with revealing that he never minimizes anything and then speculates randomly on why people would use it (missing nearly all of the reasons I use it), then bases everything on 2 peoples opinions who he had work without minimize buttons for a while.
The reasons for getting rid of the maximize button is they though it emphasized the title bar as a way to resize the window (WTF?) and that the new way is more enjoyable (WTFFF?)
I haven't found a single reason that wasn't based on incredibly minor aesthetics or really screwed up views of "emphasis" or "mental models."
Can anyone give an actual reason for doing this?
This sentence no verb.
... from the very beginning.
I lost track of all the "cool" but horrible ideas which made it into gnome.
- CORBA after it had long died
- XML
- GConf (the horrors of the windows registry re-implemented by monkeys)
- C# and Mono - embracing Microsoft technology!
- Umpteen window manager changes, none good enough
The sad part is that the other DE's are not in a good shape either. KDE 4 has come out of the woods recently. Enlightenment is still not out. XFCE does not have that traction. GNUstep is like HURD, barely alive.
May be writing a good GUI is beyond something that can be accomplished by a mainly volunteer community...
Nothing. It's just the latest from the Department of Stuff Nobody Asked For.
Who exactly is supposed to be the target audience for these inanities? On the one hand, you have people who have already being been using computers for a long time. They already know how to work a standard Win/Lin interface. What's the need to present a "baby" interface?
For children? 5-year olds can (and do) run current versions of GNOME without a problem.
Meanwhile, how many mod points do you want to bet that Gnome still will not have fixed 5 or 10 year old basic usability bugs in the file chooser, etc., as opposed to creating whole new ones with shiny, fancy stuff?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Somewhere a million Microsoft employees are smiling.
And they're smiling because, when the boss comes in while they're looking at Natalie Portman pictures, they can click the Minimize button...
In KDE you still have the minimize and maximize buttons. "If you want to minimize, you can right-click the titlebar, then click minimize, or using ALT+F9"??? WTF, I have been using computers since 1975 and find that difficult, how about n00bs?
In KDE, if you are a "power user", you can middle-click the maximize button to maximize the window vertically while maintaining the horizontal size, or right-click it to maximize the window only horizontally. Nice, easy, simple, and keeps working what has always been working.
In other words, you can always improve something, but ***IF IT AIN'T BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT***
I paid for the [1920px wide] real estate, why would I want to waste most of it?
There's a reason that newspapers have several columns of text, and this reason is that text becomes harder to read once lines become longer than 80 characters (roughly 40em in CSS). With long lines, too much of the effort is spent on finding the next line of text and making sure you don't repeat or skip a line. So put one browser window in half the screen and the other browser window in the other half.
Sounds like you want KDE.
In KDE whether or not you want minimise or maximize buttons is a simple click in the control panel.
You only use ONE application at a time? Ok... 1980 called, it wants its workflow back.
It's not a waste if:
1) Maximizing the window makes it actually harder to absorb the content in that window (as is the case with web browsers)
2) I use the extra space for something I look at often, like my IM buddy list and messages.
Comment of the year
It does NOT make the UI easier to use. Cleaner looking, yes, but NOT easier. A button sits there, visible, inviting you to click it. You see that the option is exists and if you care to find out what it does you can click it and see what happens if you're adventurous or you can RTFM if you're not. Either way, you know the option exists. Double-clicking the title bar, however, is completely non-discoverable except by accident. Look at the screenshot at the top of the screen. The title bar has the title, a close button, and... NOTHING ELSE. Just a bunch of wasted space. Gnome devs are doing their users--present and future--a great disservice by removing these buttons.
I think they're trying to copy the super-clean look of iOS, but iOS looks super clean because it works differently, not because it is clean for cleanliness' sake. There is no close button because you press the home button to leave the app. There is no minimize/restore because that's not how iOS apps work. There are no scroll bars because you scroll by dragging anywhere. Steve didn't just say "I'm going to throw away all these controls," he said "I'm going to change the UI" and as a result of THAT those controls were no longer needed. Gnome has not changed its underpinnings--it just threw away all those controls.
Double-clicking the title bar to change the window is a great shortcut for power users who know it's there because it's a nice big target and sometimes it's easier to double-click a part of the screen close to where the mouse is, rather than going after a button. But that shouldn't be the ONLY way.
Decades ago, as a kid, I absolutely HATED the original Mario games on the NES because there was all this totally undiscoverable crap where you had to jump in just the right spot to mash your head into an invisible block to get points. I thought it was the dumbest thing in the world--how could you possibly know to do that? I didn't think it was a good way to make a game back then and I'm positive that it's not a good way to make a UI now. Gnome devs are ON CRACK if they think this is a good idea.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I acknowledge that some applications benefit from more horizontal real estate in a single window. I was merely pointing out that word processors and web browsers usually aren't among them.
Spreadsheets, graphics and diagrams are one thing that benefit from maximal area. However, for other applications I maximise them only vertically, if any. I have configured title-bar double-click to expand window vertically.
Text editors, terminals, email message panels run 80 character wide as they have always been. A browser window where I type this is a bit wide, 1175 px, but it still leaves room for window below be that much visible I would notice if it scrolls. If web page is too wide for it, then C-- few times will make it behave.
On 7" netbook using Ubuntu 10.10 most windows are maximised and there the usage is just fine - expect for those dialogs that do not fit on screen. But if screen size is 1280x800 or better I very seldom maximize windows.
Ya know what would be REALLY bold? Replace the keyboard.
A radical departure would be a wall hanging with little pictures on it. Now, the unimaginitive would likely want the pictures to represent actions and things a computer would do. NO. That's too microsoft. A BOLD wall-hanging device would use pictures that DON'T correspond to actions. Like, a cartoon of a dog is what you hit to delete files.
But here's the fun part - there are TWO pictures of dogs, both hidden behind blank tiles. When you uncover one, it shows the dog for a few seconds and then goes blank. You have to remember where that is and then find the SECOND dog to complete the action.
I know what you're thinking- "That's not innovative, I've played that game before!" oh no, not THIS bold game you haven't. THIS one changes the position of all of the pictures under the blank tiles every time you open one. So you CAN'T memorize where the 1st dog was to find the second one.
Plus you can't use fingers. Nope. You use BEANBAGS. A sensor makes sure you're at least ten feet from the control, and you have to peg the tiles in the right order, throwing blindly, to complete the action. And these are not just ANY beanbags, they're special RFID beanbags. Don't lose any, though, they are expensive and demand is outstripping production so the wait for replacements is about 6 months.
Studies have shown that people LOVE bean bag toss games. This will make the computer using experience MUCH more enjoyable.
We also have a contract with Adobe. They have hired us to make Photoshop more user friendly. Currently we're looking at the bold move of replacing the entire Photoshop paradigm with something entirely different. The final decision hasn't been made. but the current favorite concept is to replace the entire Photoshop Suite with MKV files of Underdog cartoons. (MKV, not AVI. MKV is more fresh and innovative!)
Our internal studies show people in an office would rather watch Underdog than do photo editing anyway.
This space available.
Maximize all your windows by default, that's what I do.
I got rid of the minimize and maximize buttons a long time ago.
All windows (except for dialogs) are started maximized.
If I don't want a window maximized I double-click the title bar.
I've bound "minimize" to mouse-wheel down on the titlebar.
This way I can scroll through my windows by positioning my mouse on the titlebar and scrolling down. (remember, all windows are maximized, so the title bars are perfectly aligned).
Don't assume that multiple monitors means someone is trying to juggle multiple tasks. 3 monitors has become a part of my life at work. Here's how:
Left - Maximized browser window looking at my web app
Center - Maximized IDE to develop/debug my web app, providing sufficient space for my code, log monitoring, and package browsing
Right - IM Window, Resource Monitor (particularly CPU and Memory), and a handful of widgets. If there's a web-share meeting, it gets maximized here.
When I switch to a portable environment or lose a monitor, believe me, my productivity suffers.
Whereas KDE policy is "If you disKover some empty spaKe, add an useless feature or somethinK very very irritatinK. The iKon must be shiny, rotatinK, and Kontain at least one K.", the GNOME policy is the opposite: "If you find a feature, it might confuse a user, so remove it."
The alpha 3.0 release, Project Topaz, will be the perfect GNOME's desktop, as it will have absolutely Gno features at all. It will simply use excessive amounts of system resources, and do Gnothing but sit there. This final version will contain only a single button. When the user pushes it, it pops up a beautifully anti-aliased text box on a white screen telling the user to use a pen and a piece of paper to do their work and to shut their computer off.
GNOME 2.30 will be renamed to 3.0 because it will require 3GB of RAM and a modern graphics card with OpenGL 3.0 support; the graphical debugger requires a 128-bit processor, which has Gnot yet been invented, and a 3GB video card with optional 5-D rendering capability.
GNOME's logo is a huge footprint, but it is Gnot clearly established whether it is a huge memory footprint or a huge disk footprint.
(from Uncyclopedia)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Oh jesus effing Christ. I'm not a Linux hater but by god KDE, Gnome and Ubuntu seem to be having great fun in a spectacular race to the bottom.
Minimize - in GNOME 3 default shell is GNOME Shell, and in this shell there is nowhere to minimize to. You switch between windows using either Alt+Tab, or Expose, which can be reached just moving cursor to left top corner.
As a brother poster just put, what happens when you want a window hidden? I like this window existing, I don't want to see it - click, gone. Windows does this. Mac does this. Even bloody WindowMaker, blackbox and virtually every other WM in history do this. But GNOME want to differentiate themselves by removing a feature nobody wants removed. Good for them. They can suck somewhere else.
Maximize is more tricky, but more or less I always have wanted that confusing button gone. Nevermind that it toogles between maximize/restore functionality, double click on title of the window will do much better.
"Confusing"? Confused, by a maximise button? You click it, the window fills the screen. If it's filled the screen it shrinks it back. This is elementary. By all means complain about Apple's Zoom button (which is confusing to most users who don't understand what was going through Apple's head when they put it there, which is most of them) but a maximise button is probably the simplest thing there is. And by all means put Aero Snap functionality in - it's a feature of Win7 I simply cannot do without without going crazy now - but don't take a reasonable option away from me.
These changes are risky, but I would definitely not call them rushed or stupid or "just because authors want it that way". Keep in mind, that those are hired professionals which have brought us GNOME 2.x series.
They're risky because they're absolutely retarded. You would have to be absolutely insane to fuck around with something that is, to most people, an intrinsic part of using a computer. These changes are rushed, and whether their architects brought us GNOME 2 (which is hardly a case study in excellent UI idea, all things considered) is completely irrelevant. It's a silly idea.
Before criticizing understand that GNOME 3 and Unity (which also have got lot of "love" from Slashdot flamers) is created with future controls in mind - multitouch, gestures, etc.
Windows 7 does this right. I actually thought about this today - it looks like a desktop OS, it works like a desktop OS, but it would work equally well as a touchscreen OS, and neither gets disadvantaged by it. All of the controls and buttons are touch friendly without the user even realising it. To contrast however, GNOME's approach, from the looks of things (and Unity's) is "fuck you, we want it touchscreen friendly and desktop users can lump it". Bear in mind that touchscreens are still niche devices, especially on the desktop. It's stupid, stupid, stupid.
I write bullshit
Not saying that I like the idea for Gnome Shell but they are moving away from the old desktop idea. Storing things on your desktop by the way has LONG been a BAD thing done only by the terminally disorganized.
For files, there are places like Documents, and program links should go in the menu. There shouldn't be anything on your desktop to look at.
I know, not how we are used to doing things, but change is not something to be feared.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
actually, i just tested live image. and boy... it rocks like hell. as much as i was skeptical about minimize, maximize removal... in 1 minute i started wondering why were they there in the first place. managing maximization like in gnome 3 fells so much more natural. and minimize? when you have smart desktop managing, there is actually no point in having it. and automatic desktops... ROCK
so... in 1 minute it felt natural
in 5, i started wondering how dumb interfacing with desktop was before shell
now, just give me good session manager and i'm willing to forget every single pain with interfaces as they were. don't know if i like docked dialogs copied from apple though, but fortunately they can easily be set off to standard behavior with settings manager. although i don't plan to do that first second, i want to be sure i have it right.
p.s. the version that came with fedora 14 annoyed the hell out of me and i went back to standard after 1 day
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
...what they're doing.
If they did know, then they'd realize A) a GUI spec is pointless unless it forms part and parcel of a holistic OS platform, otherwise they might as well be trying to reinvent HTML; and B) being a *nix coding geek imparts a natural INferiority when it comes to GUI expertise, not the superiority that most of them obviously feel; and C) Personal Computing is a consumer culture with certain basic use cases and expectations that must be fulfilled, so you shouldn't be surprised that putting 'candy' on everything doesn't work when you expect people to operate their computers in some profoundly different ways.
What are those profound differences? Here's a few:
1) Leaving users to grope in the dark WRT hardware compatability, instead of marketing your software to hardware vendors by offering a simple test suite and standard, trademarked icon that shoppers can readily identify on the package. Leaving it to each distro to define hardware compatibility lists was wrong: They all sucked and were half-hearted at best. HCLs should be the Linux Foundation's job because hardware compatibility is the kernel's role.
2) Leaving budding programmers and power users without an SDK or standard IDE that allows anyone to get their feet wet and share their work with confidence (as in, it will actually run on another novice's machine instead of going down in a dependency flames). If you think this is stupid or off the mark, consider that Linux is doing really well on handhelds and both Google and the Linux Foundation have their own SDKs. No one will do a Desktop SDK because of the old-hacker politics involved and their loathing of vertical integration; LSB does not go far enough and doesn't even define a way to install software packages (all it has is the package format, but no procedures or interfaces are defined).
3) Leaving users to fight-it-out with their device settings. There are still some influential (old people) who behave like Linux video was good enough with VGA framebuffer support and /dev/dsp output for one audio app at a time. Yet others treat video and audio as simplistic and beneath their concern. This has lead, for example, to subsystems like X11 that could not support the use case of 'Change the display to these new parameters and if the user indicates they work, save those setiings'. Instead we got a situation where every distro had to write their own display settings code, and they all did it badly because the assumption that display settings were just too 'simple' for X11 itself to manage them just wasn't true.
Also, what most PC programmers and techs refer to as 'OS components' (libraries, services, etc) are astoundingly referred to as 'applications' in the Linux world. This distorts the way Linux techs relay help and tips to novice users to the point where the distinction between OS and application tends to disappear.
4) Relating to the "platform" primarily by its Kernel, a piece of software that is formless/invisible to most non-programmers. Suffice it to say that if Google were marketing a handheld "Linux" to phone users, their offering wouldn't be a tenth as successful as Android and there would be all kinds of negative politics involved that called for Gnome and KDE versions just for starters. The whole community is guilty of this misstep, which amounts to a sort of mass geek delusion. Note that Firefox didn't play this game and it succeeded because people knew how it looked and behaved by default, and any third parties changing the Firefox code were forced to change the name of their offering to something other than 'Firefox'. OTOH, "Linux" defines an almost formless sea of non-kernel alterations that we geeks expect users to become familiar with.
5) Inserting the OS people between the user and the app authors, ensuring that only the biggest enthusiasts and coder-types make an effort to interact directly with the authors. This is part of what I call 'distro culture' which itself has many ill effects. Contrast this with the App Store concept where authors upload their wares themselves, and get a communication channel to/from users.
The GNOME developers clearly don't surf for porn or they don't do it in an environment where they could get caught :)
It's like there's a unified anti-porn conspiracy. First Ubuntu makes me lose the ability to quickly cube rotate to another workspace, now GNOME prevents me from quickly minimizing. I hope they at least retain the ability to set the mouse scroll-wheel on the titlebar to shade windows! :)
You know, when they announced GConf, I thought like you, because I had bad experiences with the registry and back then I was an arrogant 20 year old programmer who didn't like any framework for anything, especially not tasks like configuration. However, I have warmed to it as Gnome 2.0 slowly became an OK system. Configuration should not be something that needs to be re-designed and re-implemented in every application. Things like policies, handling multiple instances of the one program, external configuration tools, etc. should work on a layer below the app. When I am writing an application, I want to be able to say, "OK, I have these options, make sure they are stored somewhere and tell me when the user wants to change them" and it works really well. It's no harder to use than libconfig or libxml2 but it has the addition that it notifies the application when a variable changes. It is a shitload easier than writing a custom parser by hand or with bison.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem