Comments on: Features and remote controls http://blogs.gnome.org/raphael/2005/12/14/features-and-remote-controls/ Just another GNOME Blogs weblog Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:28:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Luca http://blogs.gnome.org/raphael/2005/12/14/features-and-remote-controls/#comment-1 Luca Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/raphael/2005/12/14/features-and-remote-controls/#comment-1 Hi, I was going to post the very same reply to Jimmac's blog entry. I think that a lot of happy GNOME users will be even more happy with a little more power under their fingertips (me included) and eventually some unhappy users of other systems will become happy GNOME users. So I have made a first mockup of a possible improvement for GNOME UI.<p/><a href="http://www.rootshell.be/~loopback/images/preferences.png">http://www.rootshell.be/~loopback/images/preferences.png</a> Hi, I was going to post the very same reply to Jimmac’s blog entry. I think that a lot of happy GNOME users will be even more happy with a little more power under their fingertips (me included) and eventually some unhappy users of other systems will become happy GNOME users. So I have made a first mockup of a possible improvement for GNOME UI.

http://www.rootshell.be/~loopback/images/preferences.png

]]> By: Raphaël Quinet http://blogs.gnome.org/raphael/2005/12/14/features-and-remote-controls/#comment-2 Raphaël Quinet Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/raphael/2005/12/14/features-and-remote-controls/#comment-2 <p>Luca, I do not know if your mockup was intentionally funny or not, but it looks like many people consider that the current GNOME UI for preferences is very similar to your example except that it lacks the "Advanced" button.</p> Luca, I do not know if your mockup was intentionally funny or not, but it looks like many people consider that the current GNOME UI for preferences is very similar to your example except that it lacks the “Advanced” button.

]]> By: Luca http://blogs.gnome.org/raphael/2005/12/14/features-and-remote-controls/#comment-3 Luca Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/raphael/2005/12/14/features-and-remote-controls/#comment-3 Of course my mockup was just a funny pic :), but what I wrote above is exactly my point of view of the GNOME situation. Of course my mockup was just a funny pic :), but what I wrote above is exactly my point of view of the GNOME situation.

]]> By: Marcos Dione http://blogs.gnome.org/raphael/2005/12/14/features-and-remote-controls/#comment-4 Marcos Dione Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/raphael/2005/12/14/features-and-remote-controls/#comment-4 I don't think an analogy between functionality and settings is ok. Most of the time, settings are set once and never ever touched anymore, unless they're settings that change from work to work (i.e., the concept of `projects´ or `sessions´). Functionality, in the other hand, is often put `at the fingertip´ of the user just in case he needs it.<p/>Now, the discussion whether it's better follow the unix-way (do a simple task, and do it well) or not: I don't think it applies well for graphical inteface. That paradigm is well suited in environments where you can chain several programs easily (think in a pipeline in bash). <p/>For graphical environments, where pipelining is not so easy to achieve, you gotta find a balance between `this IM client is really a text editor, an account manager and a central IM send/receive server that communicates with the other two´ (not that such a nonsense exists) and `this program can burn your dvd's, do your school exams, feed you children and discuss with your boss about a promotion/salary raise and get it´.<p/>Also, it is obvious that you can't please everybody. By example, I decided my parents will be using gnome, while I love so much kde and I know it to the bone, because I think that's better for each one.<p/>More in a rant mode: Given that I love to custom the apps to my needs, I don't find the use of an external program to fully tweak the programs I use very attractive. Maybe if instead of a separate app, an embeddable widget in the `advanced settings´ page with just the settings for that app...<p/>--<br/>PS: this blog doesn't have a preview button! where is it?!? :-) I don’t think an analogy between functionality and settings is ok. Most of the time, settings are set once and never ever touched anymore, unless they’re settings that change from work to work (i.e., the concept of `projects´ or `sessions´). Functionality, in the other hand, is often put `at the fingertip´ of the user just in case he needs it.

Now, the discussion whether it’s better follow the unix-way (do a simple task, and do it well) or not: I don’t think it applies well for graphical inteface. That paradigm is well suited in environments where you can chain several programs easily (think in a pipeline in bash).

For graphical environments, where pipelining is not so easy to achieve, you gotta find a balance between `this IM client is really a text editor, an account manager and a central IM send/receive server that communicates with the other two´ (not that such a nonsense exists) and `this program can burn your dvd’s, do your school exams, feed you children and discuss with your boss about a promotion/salary raise and get it´.

Also, it is obvious that you can’t please everybody. By example, I decided my parents will be using gnome, while I love so much kde and I know it to the bone, because I think that’s better for each one.

More in a rant mode: Given that I love to custom the apps to my needs, I don’t find the use of an external program to fully tweak the programs I use very attractive. Maybe if instead of a separate app, an embeddable widget in the `advanced settings´ page with just the settings for that app…

–
PS: this blog doesn’t have a preview button! where is it?!? :-)

]]>