Slashdot Mirror


Should Apps Replace Title Bars with Header Bars? (gnome.org)

Gnome contributor Tobias Bernard is on a crusade against title bars -- "the largely empty bars at the top of some application windows [that] contain only the window title and a close button." Instead he wants to see header bars -- "a newer, more flexible pattern that allows putting window controls and other UI elements in the same bar." Tobias Bernard writes: Header bars are client-side decorations (CSD), which means they are drawn by the app rather than the display server. This allows for better integration between application and window chrome. All GNOME apps (except for Terminal) have moved to header bars over the past few years, and so have many third-party apps. However, there are still a few holdouts.
He's announcing the CSD Initiative, "an effort to get apps (both GNOME and third-party) to drop title bars and adopt GNOME-style client-side decorations... The only way to solve this problem long-term is to patch applications upstream to not use title bars. So this is what we'll have to do."
  • Talk to the maintainers and convince them that this is a good idea
  • Do the design work of adapting the layout and make mockups
  • Figure out what is required at a technical level
  • Actually implement the new layout and get it merged

Implementation is already in progress for Firefox, though it has not yet been started for other high-priority apps like LibreOffice, GNOME Terminal, and Skype. "If you want to help with any of the above tasks," writes Tobias, "come talk to us on #gnome-design on IRC/Matrix."


9 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. Sometimes they don't get in the way by Dwedit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since there is empty space at the top for a title bar, other applications have been designed around that.
    For example, Microsoft Remote Desktop puts a server bar at the top-center of the window.
    Then there's Winamp, which can be sized down to be the size of a title bar and be kept always-on-top.

    1. Re: Sometimes they don't get in the way by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Discovery and consistency within a user interface used to be very important, but by all means you are welcome to go on and keep rubbing your greasy finger all over the screen in an attempt to figure out what those poorly or non-labeled widgets do.

      Hamburger menus. Nuff said.

    2. Re:Sometimes they don't get in the way by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And I used to use Fluxbox with grouped/tabbed windows and mouse-over window switching. Very convenient but inimical to these proposed stupidbars.

      Yes well.

      Basically the GNOME people fucking HATE X11 and want to do everything they can to destroy it. Screw you for actually uing the features of X11 as intended, namely a window manager.

      Remember: the GNOME dolts decribed middle click paste as an "easter egg".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Sometimes they don't get in the way by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is title bars were introduced when 4:3 and 5:4 aspect ratio monitors were the norm. The screen was much closer to a square and so had a lot more vertical space.

      The ubiquity of 16:9 and even 21:9 monitors today means vertical space is a lot more valuable than horizontal space. If 16:9 monitors had been the norm when these UIs were first being developed, I suspect the title bar would've been placed along the left side, not on the top (reversible to the right side for languages written from right to left). I use the Tree-style Tabs extension in Firefox for this reason. Instead of my tabs taking up valuable vertical space, they're shoved off to the side where I have plenty of extra space. (Although Firefox recently moved the tabs into the title bar space. Chrome half-does this too.)

  2. modern UI design by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Modern UI design is often more and more "hide and seek". URLs are hidden, menus disappear, scroll bars appear and disappear. Sometimes, one has the impression, UI designers wanted to play a prank. Adding more stuff in the title bar can be a good thing. But first a rant: I have worked on clunky user interfaces before in my life like VMS workstations, DOS, GEM on Atari or old Mac OS or even gopher browsers pre Mosaic, but the trend of "hide stuff" is driving me nuts. OS X by default does not show the hard drive, nor scroll bars. On browsers, both phone or desktop, things like URLs disappear. It is now cool to hide important things in cryptic places like three dots on the upper right corner in chrome. Or then windows which like to become full screen or adjust their position on their own. I have experienced less frustration writing from scratch a printer driver on an Atari than solving the trivial task to find the print button on a modern browser. Fortunately, it is in most cases still possible to configure things but it often needs first some searching maybe even looking up manuals. I understand that there are two forces in UI design, one which wants to hide things so that it is elegant and beautiful and so that the complexity is hidden and users protected from screwing things up. This is the "passenger" point of view, which mostly applies to consuming stuff. And then there is the need of speed and convenience, which asks for putting many things on the radar so that they can be accessed and found quickly. This is the "pilot" point of view, which mostly applies when producing stuff. The CSD initiative could be a good thing. I for myself like the title bar information. It tells me for each window, where and what it is. Let the user be able to configure it. And in general, be very gentle with changes. Even small modifications can disrupt work flows.

  3. Re:GNOME is done. by Highdude702 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gnome is like when you take KDE and stack XFCE and LXDE ontop of it, add a hint of Enlightenment after you dive into the depth of the Windows 10 option switch, all while being drunk and on a tleast 2 types of narcotics.

  4. Re:Just. Fuck. Off. by markdavis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    +1000

    There are many reasons I despise Gnome, and this is another illustration of their arrogance. You would think they would have learned by now. This kind of thing is why I continue to use KDE, XFCE, and LXDE. Remember them mucking up desktop management? Removing any start menu option? Trying to force everything to run full-screen? Moving the stupid window controls to the LEFT side? Lack of sub-menus for program organization? Inability to see background/minimized windows? Lack of tooltips? Changing default icons to color-less line drawings? Removing more and more customizations? Gobbling up RAM like there is no tomorrow?

    **I AM NOT USING A FREAKING TABLET***

    Message to Gnome: If you are going to continue to ignore your user base and do freaky things to the UI, the least you can do is to make such changes OPTIONAL through easy user configuration. And not just now [to remove the options later], but ALWAYS.

  5. Re:Just. Fuck. Off. by rnturn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had a similar discussion with a Mac fanboi back in the '80s. There were no menus in the application he was using. You were supposed to just ``know'' that randomly clicking on elements of the application display would bring up a menu---sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't. In the past I would describe this as the ``Myst'' User Interface: just randomly click on stuff to see what happens.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  6. Re:More useful than that... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... And frankly, that makes me think this should be the role of the window manager....

    I would agree with that. The only reason why I put the onus on the app was that I was dumped upon the last time I brought it up for windows managers. Everyone told me it was the apps' responsibility. Seems like a lot of "not my job" finger pointing, imo. But I still have to ask, why is it still missing in GNU/Linux?

    .
    It's a basic ease of use requirement. Why make the user resize and relocate a window each time the same app is opened? Aren't computers supposed to help reduce the number of repetitive tasks, not create more of them? KDE comes close on this, allowing me to remember size/location for individual windows, but the ability is sadly absent in the global settings area.