So have a site with "too much data" that you haven't managed to usably format on smaller devices.
Google isn't going to penalise you on mobile search results - until, of course, someone comes along offering similar data that they have found a way to usably format on smaller devices. And that's a good thing.
you would think that with your marketing speak the company would try cater to the people they are marketing towards but it seems they dont. too bad.
They're not marketing towards you, because people who turn Javascript off and go out of their way to post about it on internet forums are statistical background noise, and are more trouble than they're worth.
Any sane GUI designer would be wiser to think of the actual users, and not just what is a "subjectively better UI". There is a reason why things have been done the way they are for so long, and to ignore these reason is simply stupid.
No. Speak for yourself. Given me a subjectively better UI and I'll be happy to learn it because in the long run it'll make my life better.
There are reasons why things have been done the way they are for so long, but they're not necessarily good reasons. QWERTY keyboards were designed to stop the hammers on typewriters from binding up. They exist because of a limitation of the time.
And furthermore "the better UI" simply sucks. Proof in point [pingdom.com].
Posting this as your "proof" only makes your argument look weaker. It's terrible. Please come up with a better one.
Because I can quickly without touching anything see the percentage I am in a webpage which I can't with auto-hiding scroll bars
There's a reason I gave this exact use-case as a ridiculous example of the only reason for permanent scroll bars: it's ridiculous. Sorry. I usually know how far I am down a document because I can see the elevator descending the scroll bar as I'm scrolling there. In the rare event I need to know and I forget, I can nudge the mouse wheel. This is never, ever, ever a problem.
stuff that worked for the last 20 years shouldn't be mucked about with without a good reason
There is good reason. Go back and read my posts again.
I can claim with as much evidence that they are screwing things up. Given use statistics I can actually make my claim with strong evidence
Go for it.
cuz Apple does it on a 3 inch screen
lol yeah, what the fuck do Apple know about GUIs, rite? It's not like they've spent decades paying top dollar for psychological scientists to do controlled human-computer-interaction studies or anything. They're just fucking kids who keep changing shit for no good reason.
Furthermore, there is no way you can call what is at the side of Safari on iOS a scroll bar. You can't select it, it is hardly visible and you certainly can't jump ahead. Long documents are difficult with such an interface.
Scrolling in Safari works fine. Compound acceleration on the scroll gesture allows me to scroll to the bottom of massive pages just as quick as on a desktop with a mouse. The elevator is no more difficult to see than the gray-on-gray default colour scheme on most desktops.
If you do need to instantaneously jump to a specific part of a long list (e.g., the phone's contact list), there is another view available that offers a directly manipulatable scroll bar. They don't use this for the browser because (drum roll) it isn't something people usually need to reading web pages.
[My mobile device] doesn't have scroll bars, so I don't know why you claim they validate auto-hiding
Both Android and iOS do have scroll bars. They validate auto-hiding because millions of people use them without any kind of global outrage - and nobody has felt the need to replace them, so it's pretty safe to conclude they "work".
Scroll bars are just more of the same where GNOME "designers" know better
Evidently so. We're 5 posts in to this back-and-forth and I strongly suspect that if you had an irrefutable use-case for permanently visible scroll bars (other than "because that's how they've always been"), you'd have posted it by now. Right now it just looks more and more like what you're saying is "How I learned to use a desktop environment 20 years ago is perfect, stop improving things!"
And scroll bars aren't the real issue with me
I don't care about any of that. I only took issue with "skids" stating how he couldn't understand why anyone would want disappearing scroll bars, and I explained why.
Offering checkboxes for every relatively small UI preference (such as 'always show scroll bars') would be a nightmare for app developers. Every single checkbox option you offer doubles the number of possible ways your app is displayed and potentially behaves, which will make testing anything non-trivial practically impossible.
Do this, and it's guaranteed some idiot "power user" is going to wade in and end up with some special snowflake configuration because they (of course) know better, and when they invariably fuck things up and come asking for help, you're going to waste hours finding out that it's because their dumb preferences broke your app in a way you had absolutely no realistic chance of catching in testing. So no, I'd much rather GNOME not offer these options as preferences.
Your claim that auto-hiding scroll bars work perfectly for everyone needs a citation
I never said they worked perfectly for everyone, but It's how touch screen mobile devices used by millions have worked for years and years, seemingly without outrage. I'd call that a pretty solid validation of the concept.
And small devices always trumps those of use with large screens.
Consistency trumps both. Auto-hiding scroll bars work for smaller screens because they don't waste space, and they works for larger screens because 99.99% of computer users don't need vertical scroll bars displayed all the time.
Deciding whether or not your scroll bars are always visible based on screen size is technically difficult (not least because lots of devices don't even know how big they are) and introduces needless inconsistency when auto-hiding scroll bars work perfectly well for practically everyone.
Why anyone would want disappearing scrollbars is a mystery to me.
Because permanently displayed scroll bars are a waste of screen space, which is incredibly precious on small devices.
Having been using disappearing scroll bars on various devices for (what feels like) years, I can safely say I have never, ever found myself thinking "hmm, I need to know exactly how far I'm scrolled down this page and I absolutely can't just nudge the mouse wheel to make the scroll bar appear briefly so I can check."
And apparently, neither have they.
Re: Contributing is the worst thing to do.
on
GNOME 3.16 Released
·
· Score: 0
Developers shouldn't review fixes to bugs that they introduced.
Except it's not that useful, is it? The first thing you do when your desktop starts up is open an application or to and cover the icons up. Every time I want to get back to these all-important files, I have to minimise or re-arrange all my windows every time.
But but super+D reveals the desktop. Great, but if I'm having to use special keystrokes to show my files, I might as well just use Nautilus. That gives me access to the exact same functionality as the desktop but in a resizeable, movable, stackable window that I can alt+tab to. Having the desktop act as a file-manager is just unnecessary.
you barely use your computer for anything serious in the first place
If your argument was worth a shit you wouldn't even have to bother with this.
If the Debian mailing list is anything like Slasdot, I don't blame them. Any vaguely related topic gets instantly spammed to shit by the same dickheads copy/pasting the same comments about how systemd is an NSA plot to read everyone's worthless secret diaries, how Red Hat are trying to take Linux closed-source and how Poettering is the fucking anti-christ.
I'd rather read "cheap Canadlan m3ds" spam. At least that's informative.
"our strategy to rotate-on-corruption is the safest thing we can do, as we make sure that the internal corruption is frozen in time, and not attempted to be "fixed" by a tool, that might end up making things worse"
As soon as boot times are below 1 minute, it isn't relevant anymore
It's relevant because people who develop remotely hosted apps (like me) can have a load balancer spool up extra servers in under a second to deal with spikes in demand on a per-request basis. Because I pay for these servers by the second, if I can keep them powered off until they're needed, I save money.
Presumably, the Wayland devs didn't bother with (your idea of) perfect "remoting" support because they don't want to waste their free time baking in support for legacy bullshit that only a microscopic (and shrinking) fraction of people care about. This doesn't make them "doofuses"
If you don't want to use their product, then don't. If you don't want to use distributions that chose to use their product, then don't.
Slashdot Mirror
So have a site with "too much data" that you haven't managed to usably format on smaller devices.
Google isn't going to penalise you on mobile search results - until, of course, someone comes along offering similar data that they have found a way to usably format on smaller devices. And that's a good thing.
So what you're saying is, a store you visited is owned/operated by idiots.
Shocker. Thanks for sharing.
How about this
you would think that with your marketing speak the company would try cater to the people they are marketing towards but it seems they dont. too bad.
They're not marketing towards you, because people who turn Javascript off and go out of their way to post about it on internet forums are statistical background noise, and are more trouble than they're worth.
Any sane GUI designer would be wiser to think of the actual users, and not just what is a "subjectively better UI". There is a reason why things have been done the way they are for so long, and to ignore these reason is simply stupid.
No. Speak for yourself. Given me a subjectively better UI and I'll be happy to learn it because in the long run it'll make my life better.
There are reasons why things have been done the way they are for so long, but they're not necessarily good reasons. QWERTY keyboards were designed to stop the hammers on typewriters from binding up. They exist because of a limitation of the time.
And furthermore "the better UI" simply sucks. Proof in point [pingdom.com].
Posting this as your "proof" only makes your argument look weaker. It's terrible. Please come up with a better one.
Because I can quickly without touching anything see the percentage I am in a webpage which I can't with auto-hiding scroll bars
There's a reason I gave this exact use-case as a ridiculous example of the only reason for permanent scroll bars: it's ridiculous. Sorry. I usually know how far I am down a document because I can see the elevator descending the scroll bar as I'm scrolling there. In the rare event I need to know and I forget, I can nudge the mouse wheel. This is never, ever, ever a problem.
stuff that worked for the last 20 years shouldn't be mucked about with without a good reason
There is good reason. Go back and read my posts again.
I can claim with as much evidence that they are screwing things up. Given use statistics I can actually make my claim with strong evidence
Go for it.
cuz Apple does it on a 3 inch screen
lol yeah, what the fuck do Apple know about GUIs, rite? It's not like they've spent decades paying top dollar for psychological scientists to do controlled human-computer-interaction studies or anything. They're just fucking kids who keep changing shit for no good reason.
Furthermore, there is no way you can call what is at the side of Safari on iOS a scroll bar. You can't select it, it is hardly visible and you certainly can't jump ahead. Long documents are difficult with such an interface.
Scrolling in Safari works fine. Compound acceleration on the scroll gesture allows me to scroll to the bottom of massive pages just as quick as on a desktop with a mouse. The elevator is no more difficult to see than the gray-on-gray default colour scheme on most desktops.
If you do need to instantaneously jump to a specific part of a long list (e.g., the phone's contact list), there is another view available that offers a directly manipulatable scroll bar. They don't use this for the browser because (drum roll) it isn't something people usually need to reading web pages.
[My mobile device] doesn't have scroll bars, so I don't know why you claim they validate auto-hiding
Both Android and iOS do have scroll bars. They validate auto-hiding because millions of people use them without any kind of global outrage - and nobody has felt the need to replace them, so it's pretty safe to conclude they "work".
Scroll bars are just more of the same where GNOME "designers" know better
Evidently so. We're 5 posts in to this back-and-forth and I strongly suspect that if you had an irrefutable use-case for permanently visible scroll bars (other than "because that's how they've always been"), you'd have posted it by now. Right now it just looks more and more like what you're saying is "How I learned to use a desktop environment 20 years ago is perfect, stop improving things!"
And scroll bars aren't the real issue with me
I don't care about any of that. I only took issue with "skids" stating how he couldn't understand why anyone would want disappearing scroll bars, and I explained why.
Offering checkboxes for every relatively small UI preference (such as 'always show scroll bars') would be a nightmare for app developers. Every single checkbox option you offer doubles the number of possible ways your app is displayed and potentially behaves, which will make testing anything non-trivial practically impossible.
Do this, and it's guaranteed some idiot "power user" is going to wade in and end up with some special snowflake configuration because they (of course) know better, and when they invariably fuck things up and come asking for help, you're going to waste hours finding out that it's because their dumb preferences broke your app in a way you had absolutely no realistic chance of catching in testing. So no, I'd much rather GNOME not offer these options as preferences.
Your claim that auto-hiding scroll bars work perfectly for everyone needs a citation
I never said they worked perfectly for everyone, but It's how touch screen mobile devices used by millions have worked for years and years, seemingly without outrage. I'd call that a pretty solid validation of the concept.
And small devices always trumps those of use with large screens.
Consistency trumps both. Auto-hiding scroll bars work for smaller screens because they don't waste space, and they works for larger screens because 99.99% of computer users don't need vertical scroll bars displayed all the time.
Deciding whether or not your scroll bars are always visible based on screen size is technically difficult (not least because lots of devices don't even know how big they are) and introduces needless inconsistency when auto-hiding scroll bars work perfectly well for practically everyone.
Why anyone would want disappearing scrollbars is a mystery to me.
Because permanently displayed scroll bars are a waste of screen space, which is incredibly precious on small devices.
Having been using disappearing scroll bars on various devices for (what feels like) years, I can safely say I have never, ever found myself thinking "hmm, I need to know exactly how far I'm scrolled down this page and I absolutely can't just nudge the mouse wheel to make the scroll bar appear briefly so I can check."
And apparently, neither have they.
Developers shouldn't review fixes to bugs that they introduced.
Right.
will be watching bbc management scramble when they realize their cash cow left the building when May and Hammond, decline to renew their contracts.
The three of them have have said that Top Gear is either all 3 of them, or they all stop doing it. This has been public knowledge for years.
dickheads "reviewing" your code
Other developers daring to review your changes to their projects?
The very nerve!
Does anyone else know what this guy is on about?
I can't be arsed deciphering his post to work it out.
perfectly good and useful functionality
Except it's not that useful, is it? The first thing you do when your desktop starts up is open an application or to and cover the icons up. Every time I want to get back to these all-important files, I have to minimise or re-arrange all my windows every time.
But but super+D reveals the desktop. Great, but if I'm having to use special keystrokes to show my files, I might as well just use Nautilus. That gives me access to the exact same functionality as the desktop but in a resizeable, movable, stackable window that I can alt+tab to. Having the desktop act as a file-manager is just unnecessary.
you barely use your computer for anything serious in the first place
If your argument was worth a shit you wouldn't even have to bother with this.
I honestly can't say I noticed. I came to the conclusion that having icons on your desktop was a bad idea before upgrading to GNOME 3.
I use GNOME 3 all day every day for software development work, I quite like it, and find it to be perfectly usable.
According to Slashdot, I'm evidently the only person on the planet who feels this way.
If the Debian mailing list is anything like Slasdot, I don't blame them. Any vaguely related topic gets instantly spammed to shit by the same dickheads copy/pasting the same comments about how systemd is an NSA plot to read everyone's worthless secret diaries, how Red Hat are trying to take Linux closed-source and how Poettering is the fucking anti-christ.
I'd rather read "cheap Canadlan m3ds" spam. At least that's informative.
I don't have a lot of strong feelings about systemd, but it does strike me as fundamentally failing to understand Unix.
Who said anything about Unix?
"our strategy to rotate-on-corruption is the safest thing we can do, as we make sure that the internal corruption is frozen in time, and not attempted to be "fixed" by a tool, that might end up making things worse"
That seems perfectly reasonable, to be honest.
As soon as boot times are below 1 minute, it isn't relevant anymore
It's relevant because people who develop remotely hosted apps (like me) can have a load balancer spool up extra servers in under a second to deal with spikes in demand on a per-request basis. Because I pay for these servers by the second, if I can keep them powered off until they're needed, I save money.
journalctl can't read portions of it without trying to replace the who journal with a new one
Can you link to a bug report about this?
What are we going to be left with when the shiny wears off Docker and next year's flavour of the day comes along?
Something better.
As is generally the case with progress.
I say, send those few extra bytes and keep it readable.
Yes, for the 0.000000000001% of HTTP traffic flowing over the internet that actually gets read directly by humans.
The people making that decision don't own and operate my servers, so they're not qualified to make that decision for me.
No, they just write and maintain the software that your servers (and by extension, you) depend on.
Presumably, the Wayland devs didn't bother with (your idea of) perfect "remoting" support because they don't want to waste their free time baking in support for legacy bullshit that only a microscopic (and shrinking) fraction of people care about. This doesn't make them "doofuses"
If you don't want to use their product, then don't. If you don't want to use distributions that chose to use their product, then don't.