It’s been an exciting year for Fractal, the GNOME Matrix client. Since our last hackfest in May, we’ve decided to split the application, refactored large parts of the backend, implemented new features such as the media viewer, made the message history adaptive, and laid the groundwork for end-to-end encryption.
Now that we have most of the foundations in place that will enable our long-term goals (such as adaptive layout, E2E, and the app split), we’re getting together again to push these initiatives forward. This is why we’re having another hackfest on December 11-14 in Seville, Spain.
The main focus of the hackfest will be finalizing the backend refactor, and tying up various loose ends related to this, so we can start working on E2E and the app split. The other area we want to focus on is improving Fractal as a tool for GNOME developers, and IRC replacement. In particular, we’re interested in providing a smooth, integrated GNOME Newcomer experience, because finding the right rooms to join is currently a big pain point for new contributors.
tl;dr: If you want to change how an app looks, you need a designer in the loop.
Over the past few months we’ve had a lively debate about “theming” in GNOME, and how it affects our ecosystem. In this discussion I’ve found that there is a divide between people who design and/or develop apps, and people who don’t. I have yet to see an app developer who thinks the current approach to “theming” can work, while many people who aren’t app developers are arguing that it can.
After a few long discussions I started to realize that part of the reason why there’s so little agreement and so much drama around this issue is that we don’t agree what the problem is. Those who don’t work on apps often can’t see the issues with theming and think we want to remove things for no reason, while those who do are very frustrated that the other side doesn’t want to acknowledge how broken everything is.
The basic issue we’re arguing about is whether it’s possible to restyle applications automatically, at scale, without breaking them. In this post I’ll try to explain why I think that it isn’t possible, and why trying to do it is hurting our ecosystem.
There are no themes, just CSS
A fundamental misconception a lot of people have is that GTK 3 supports theming. This is not true, as there is no clearly defined theming API. There are CSS stylesheets, but they were only ever meant to be used by the platform and app developers. The platform stylesheet is called Adwaita (“the only one” in Sanskrit) for a reason.
However, some people (inlcluding major distributions) have been using custom stylesheets as a hacky approximation of “themes” for so long now that nobody even remembers that they are not a real theming API.
Since CSS is a huge API surface, which is used by both app developers and “theme” developers, it’s very easy for the two to conflict. This leads to apps looking broken unless you manually do QA for every app/theme combination.
“You’re exaggerating, it’s not that bad.”
One of the most frustrating things about the current situation is that to users, it looks like it almost works. For the most part, third-party themes look and work okayish, there are just a few small bugs here and there. A button with too little contrast, an underline clashing with a border, a really large loading spinner. Not that big a deal, you’d think.
However, this view of the situation misses a few really important realities:
App developers are doing a lot of bug fixing to account for “theming”, because people complain to them when their app is broken on certain distros. The current situation essentially forces developers to fix bugs for setups they never intended to support in the first place. They’re not happy about it, but they’re doing it because they don’t want their users to have broken apps.
App developers are trying hard not do anything innovative or visual in their apps, because they know it will break with other stylesheets.
“Theme” developers are fixing a lot of bugs for edge cases in individual apps in their stylesheets. Of course, this is a never-ending task because as soon as a new version of an app is released, something will very likely be broken again.
All of this only kinda sorta works because we have very few apps. If we ever hope to grow our ecosystem past a few dozen apps things have to change, because maintaining a “theme” gets less sustainable with every new app.
There is also the question of what your definition of “broken” is. Some people think that things like these are acceptable:
I believe this is nowhere near ok. App developers put a lot of effort into making sure their apps look and feel right, fixing bugs, and doing QA. Having distributors change their apps (often in ways that break things) with no QA before users get to experience them is developer-hostile, and would be unacceptable in any other context.
Can you imagine Samsung restyling every third-party app on their phones, without testing them, and when Instagram complains that the text on their buttons is illegible Samsung just shrug and say “Sorry, but branding is very important to us. Why don’t you change your app?”.
“But it’s fine as long as you follow best practices!”
This is a common sentiment among some people. “If only app developers followed best practices, used CSS variables, and derived their colors from theme colors, everything would be fine”, the argument goes. While it’s true that these things are important and make apps more flexible in terms of appearance, this doesn’t come close to solving the entire problem.
If every app only used default GTK controls, in very simple layouts, with no custom widgets or in-app CSS, then best practices would perhaps be enough to prevent apps from breaking. But the reality is that a) this is not the case, and b) we really don’t want it to be the case.
Human Interface Guidelines are just that: guidelines. They have to be implemented manually, they change and evolve over time, and the best apps on any platform push their boundaries in some places and experiment with new patterns (which then sometimes make their way back into the HIG).
This kind of experimentation means that it’s impossible to “theme” apps automatically. Visual design and interaction design are very closely linked, so if you want to change the style, you need a designer to actually think about what a widget should look like.
For example: How should the Pop theme know what a “flat” variant of the new Nautilus path bar should look like? It’s impossible to do this automatically, because it’s a new pattern.
This is not a rare situation, even among core GNOME apps. Many of the apps I’ve personally worked on have their own equivalent of the Nautilus path bar. And that’s the way it should be. Apps have different needs that sometimes require custom solutions, and this experimentation is good for the ecosystem. However, it also means that automatic restyling is impossible.
“But what about Adwaita Dark and High Contrast?”
The point that the dark and high contrast variants of Adwaita can be seen as GTK 3 kinda sorta supporting themes is technically accurate, but misguided. Adwaita variants may technically just be different stylesheets, but this is just an implementation detail. There are very clear differences between them and third-party “themes”.
They are very very close to Adwaita code-wise, and therefore much less likely to break.
There’s a finite number of them, and they are part of the platform. This makes them a tangible target for developers to test for and support, which is completely different from third-party “themes” which just apply random CSS to every app without any QA.
They are part of the same design language, so they require very little extra work to adapt to from a design point of view. If you follow the best practices mentioned above, often no work at all.
“But what about consistency? I want all my apps to look the same!”
“Consistency” is a word you hear a lot in debates about theming, but it seems to mean different things to different people.
To some, consistency effectively means “everything should use the same colors”. This is relatively easy to achieve for some apps, even across toolkits, if you simply provide a “theme” for each toolkit.
However, this “consistency” is very shallow. Just because a Qt app uses the Adwaita colors it doesn’t automatically fit in with the GNOME platform. UI patterns are much more important, and they can’t be changed with theming. There is no magic that can redesign menu bar apps with header bars.
Real consistency can only happen by design, and requires the app developer to build it into the app at every step. If you want all your apps to look the same, only use apps built for your platform’s HIG. “Fixing” apps after the fact with theming isn’t really making your system more consistent, but it’s hurting app developers a great deal.
Of course, even the very shallow “everything uses the same colors” consistency is impossible to enforce across all apps and toolkits. Apps like Blender, Telegram, or Steam don’t respond to system theming at all, and even Firefox and Chromium only do so in a very limited fashion.
“But users *want* themes!”
“Users” want a lot of things, but just because you want something impossible that doesn’t make it possible. In this case, it’s important to be aware of the costs of giving complete visual freedom to “themes”, both in individual app developer effort, and chilling effects on the ecosystem. If given a choice between customization and more, better apps, I’m confident the majority of people would prefer the latter.
Would it be nice if there were a way to be able to restyle every app to make them look like Material Design, or macOS, or Windows 95, and have them all look as if they were built for that style? Absolutely! I would love that! However, as I’ve tried to explain in this blog post, this is simply not realistic.
So, what can we do?
As the recent discussions have shown, talking about solutions before we agree what the problem is isn’t very productive, so for now I’m mostly interested in making sure we’re all aware of the problem and its various facets. There are several different stakeholders with different perspectives on this issue, and making progress will mean making some hard choices. At this year’s GUADEC we had a Theming & Ecosystem BoF where we talked about a number of potential directions, and I hope we can move forward on that path.
No matter what we come up with though, I think it’s crucial that we start taking the needs of app developers seriously. Developers are the lifeblood of any platform, and we’ve been treating them very poorly. If we want to grow our ecosystem and actually compete with other major platforms, we need to fix that.
Note: The examples in this post have been chosen because the themes in question ship with major distributions, so app developers tend to get complaints about them. It’s not my intention to single them out, this problem applies to all third-party themes equally.
A few weeks ago I attended GUADEC in Almeria, Spain. The travel was a bit of an adventure, because Julian and I went there and back from Italy by train. It was great though, because we had lots of time to hack on Fractal on the train.
The conference days were great, though I didn’t manage to see many talks because I kept getting tied up in interesting discussions (first world problem, I know :D). I did give a talk of my own though, about my work at Purism on UI patterns for making GNOME apps work on mobile. There is a video recording of the talk, and here are my slides.
The main thing I tried to get across is that Purism isn’t trying to create a separate ecosystem or platform, but to make the GNOME platform better upstream. We ship vanilla GNOME on our laptops, and we want to do the same on phones. It’s of course early days, and it will take a while for everything to get into place, but it feels great to work for a company that has upstream-first as a core principle.
The biggest area where our efforts will make an impact upstream in the short term are the Libhandy widgets Adrien and Guido have been working on. These widgets allow regular GNOME/GTK apps to scale to smaller sizes using adaptive UI patterns. The patterns are extending GNOME’s existing HIG in a few small details only, and can be used to make many existing GNOME apps adaptive without requiring major UI changes. We’re still experimenting with them, but once the patterns are solid and the widgets stable, we will work to upstream them into GTK.
Using Libhandy widgets will not only enable apps to run on phones, but also yield benefits on the desktop. For example, HdyColumn solves a very old problem many GTK apps have: Lists that need to grow with the window’s width, but also need a maximum width to ensure legibility. By enabling this, HdyColumn allows apps to work better on both very small and very large screens.
The BoF days were packed with interesting sessions, but sadly many of them happened simultaneously, so I was only able to attend a few of them. However, the ones I did attend were all incredibly productive and interesting, and I’m excited about the things we worked on and planned for the future.
Monday: Librem 5
On Monday I attended the all-day Librem 5 BoF, together with my colleagues from Purism, and some community members, such as Jordan and Julian from Fractal.
We talked about apps, particularly the messaging situation and Fractal. We discussed what will be needed in order to split the app, make the UI adaptive, and get end-to-end encryption. Daniel’s work on the database and Julian’s message history refactor are currently laying the groundwork for these.
On the shell side we talked through the design of various parts of the shell, such as keyboard, notifications, multitasking, and gestures. Though many of those things won’t be implemented in the near future, we have a plan for where we’re going with these, and getting designers and developers in one room was very productive for working out some of the details.
We also discussed a number of exciting new widgets to make it easier to get GNOME apps to work at smaller sizes, such as a new adaptive preferences window, and a way to allow modal windows to take up the entire screen at small sizes.
Multi-Monitor & Theming
On Tuesday we had a Multi-Monitor BoF, where we discussed multi-monitor behaviors with people from System76 and Ubuntu, among others. The most interesting parts to me were the discussions about adding some usecase-driven modes, such as a presentation mode, and a potential new keyboard-driven app switching interface (think Alt-Tab, but good). All of this will require a lot of work, but it’s great to see downstreams like System76 interested in driving initiatives like this.
In the afternoon we had the Theming & Ecosystem BoF, where we got designers, upstream GNOME developers, and people from various downstreams together to talk about the state of theming, and its impact on our ecosystem.
The basic problem we were discussing is that app developers want stable APIs and control over what their app looks like on user’s systems, while some distributions want to apply their own branding to everything. The current situation is pretty bad, because users end up with broken apps, developers constantly need to fix bugs for setups they didn’t want to support in the first place, and distributions need to invest lots of resources into building forever-slightly-broken custom themes. We discussed a number of possible approaches to tackle this problem, in order to make our platform easier to target. I’ll blog about this in more detail, but I’m excited about the possibility of finally solving this long-standing problem.
We also talked about some of our future plans with regard to icons. This includes a new “library” of symbolics, and a push for app developers to ship symbolic icons with their apps, rather than linking to random strings which have to be maintained forever. We also introduced the new app icon style initiative, which will make it drastically easier to make icons because they are simpler, more geometric, and there are fewer sizes to draw. All of this will still develop over the next cycle, since it’s not going to ship until 3.32.
Wednesday: What is a GNOME app?
On Wednesday we had a small but very productive BoF to work on a proposal for a policy for including new apps as part of GNOME, and more generally getting a clearer definition of what it means for a project to be part of GNOME. There is currently no clear process for the inclusion of new projects as part of GNOME, so it doesn’t happen very often, and usually in a very disorganized fashion. This is a problem, because it leaves people who are excited about making new GNOME apps without a clear path to do so.
For example, both Fractal and Podcasts were built from the ground up to be GNOME apps, but still haven’t made it to the GNOME/ group on Gitlab officially, because there’s no clear policy. The new Calls app Bob is building for the Librem 5 is in the same limbo, just waiting around for someone to say if/how it can become a part of GNOME officially.
At the BoF we drafted a proposal for an explicit inclusion policy. The idea is for apps that a follow a set of criteria (e.g. follows the HIG, uses our tech stack) to be able to apply for inclusion, and have some kind of committee that could review these requests.
This is only a very rough proposal for now, but I’m excited about the potential it has to bring in more developers from the wider ecosystem. And of course, as the designer of a half dozen semi-official GNOME apps I’m very selfishly interested in getting this in place
In addition to all of the above, it was great to meet and hang out with so many of the awesome people in our community at social events, beach BoFs, and ad-hoc hacking sessions on the corridor. It’s hard to believe that one year ago I came to GUADEC as a newcomer. This year it felt like coming home.
One of the biggest problems with Fractal at the moment is that 1-1 messaging is pretty terrible. Since the rooms in the sidebar are sorted by most recent activity, high-traffic public rooms (such as GNOME IRC channels) tend to drown out rooms with less traffic, such as 1-1s and small groups. This is problematic because the signal-to-noise ratio in 1-1 chats and small groups tends to be much higher than in high-traffic public rooms. This leaves the user constantly searching for the rooms they care about, while the rooms they don’t care about are always at the top.
One way to solve this problem is having a favorites group for “important” rooms. This is a feature Fractal has had for a while, and it does solve some of the problems with a room list sorted purely by recent activity. However, it only works well for rooms that are important over long periods of time, and needs to be managed manually. 1-1 chats are often brief, and there can be many of them in parallel. Putting them in favorites doesn’t make sense in many cases, as it would balloon the size of the favorites group, and require lots of manual work when starting or ending a conversation.
The “obvious” solution would be doing what Riot does: Having a separate group of 1-1 rooms in the sidebar, and thereby keeping the 1-1 conversations in one consistent place. However, this creates more problems than it solves. In practice, it results in multiple groups of arbitrary length competing for real estate in the sidebar. If you have a lot of 1-1s, this means that you’ll be able to see very few rooms (even when most of the 1-1s are old and not relevant at the moment). In Riot, this group is capped at 10 visible rooms by default, but that’s still not great if you only need 2 of them at the moment. The category can be collapsed, but then you can’t see which 1-1s have new messages, and it also means lots of busywork collapsing/expanding the group. Clearly this isn’t an ideal solution, which is why we were very hesitant to go down this path.
A way out?
As we were discussing this issue over the past few months, I started looking more closely at the way people use different messaging tools. One thing I found puzzling is that despite the fact that Matrix theoretically supports the use cases covered by popular apps like Whatsapp and Telegram, few people are actually using it to replace those apps. Instead, they use it to replace IRC and Slack.
Why? My theory is that most chat rooms fall in one of three categories: Private Chats, which include 1-1s and small groups; Team Chats, which are larger, but still private and invite-only; and Public Rooms, which are basically like IRC.
Team Chats and Public Rooms share many characteristics: Both have relatively high amounts of traffic, and there’s a lot of noise. The main difference is that Team Chats are private and the members rarely change (e.g. a company’s internal Slack), while Public Rooms can be joined by anyone at any time, and there is no expectation of privacy (e.g. #gnome-hackers on IRC).
However, Private Chats have relatively little in common with the other two categories: They are low-traffic, and have little or no noise. This may sound like a small difference, but I think it’s the reason why 1-1s suck in Fractal/Riot/IRC, and why people aren’t using Matrix to replace Telegram.
The Banquet and the Barbecue
I’ve come to the conclusion that one app can’t cover all the use cases that the Matrix protocol supports, and still provide competitive UX. If you design an app to deal with lots of high-traffic rooms (e.g. Riot as it is today), it will suck for 1-1s, so people will use something else for those. Similarly, Telegram is primarily designed for 1-1s and small groups, which is why it’s a terrible experience if you have many high-traffic groups.
If we want Matrix to succeed as more than an IRC/Slack replacement we need multiple apps, each focusing on a distinct use case. For messaging, I think the most important distinction to make is between what I call the Banquet and the Barbecue.
The Banquet is a big, loud place. There are tons of people, and you don’t know many of them. Lots of things are happening all the time, and it’s hard to keep track of everything. This is what Matrix is currently mostly used for. Slack, IRC, and Discord are also all in this category.
The Barbecue is at the other end of the spectrum: It’s a calm, private environment where friends, family, co-workers, and other acquaintances hang out. Conversations are mostly between 2 or 3 people, slow, and often very personal. Telegram, Whatsapp, iMessage, Facebook Messenger, and a myriad of other chat apps are optimized for this use case.
Now, what does this mean for Fractal? After a long discussion on Thursday, we decided to split up Fractal into two separate apps with different interfaces, each containing a subset of the user’s Matrix rooms.
Exactly how rooms will be split between the two apps is not 100% clear yet. 1-1s are clearly Barbecue, public rooms are clearly Banquet, but private groups could go either way. For these cases we may need a way to explicitly move rooms between apps. The distinction should probably be part of the Matrix spec, so the intent for a room to be a Barbecue or Banquet room could be set when creating a room, and persist across devices.
The two apps will share practically all the internals, and even large parts of the interface. However, the split will allow us to do some things differently in each app to optimize the interfaces for the different use cases. Some of the changes we’re considering are a bubble-style message view in the Barbecue app, and more room categories (such as low-priority) in the Banquet app’s sidebar.
How exactly the apps will be branded (and what will happen to the Fractal name we all love) is still being decided, but there is some consensus to move to GNOME-style generic names. The Barbecue app will almost certainly be called “Messages”. For the Banquet app there’s less agreement, but my current favorite is “Discussions”.
The Fractal brand will not go away though: We’re thinking of keeping it around as the name of the community project that develops both GNOME Matrix apps, and/or using it for the backend powering both apps.
There are lots of details to be figured out in this transition, both from a design and an implementation perspective, but I’m very excited about this new direction. If you’d like to join the effort, come talk to us on Matrix.
Note: I have no illusions that this change will magically get everyone to leave Whatsapp/Telegram/iMessage and move to Matrix. In the short term, the goal is simply to make Matrix 1-1s a good experience. That said, if we ever want Matrix to make inroads with the general public, I think a move in this direction is an important precondition.
Last week we had an intense 4-day hackfest in Strasbourg to map out the future of Fractal, a native GNOME Matrix messaging app. The event was held at Epitech in Strasbourg’s old town, and organized by Alexandre Franke. Among the attendees were core Fractal contributors Daniel, Alexandre, Eisha, and Julian, as well as Dorota, Adrien, and Francois from Purism. Special thanks go to Matthew from the Matrix core team for joining us on the first two days.
Our main priorities for the hackfest were to plan the roadmap for the next months, decide on the tasks for our GSoC students (Eisha and Julian), and work on the design of some important missing features, like the room settings.
I personally attended the hackfest in both my role as designer on the Fractal project and as a Purism employee currently working on the apps for the Librem 5. One of the reasons why several members of the Librem 5 team attended the hackfest was that we will need a Matrix messaging app on the phone and wanted to explore a potential collaboration.
The hackfest was extremely productive, so much so that I’ll need multiple blog posts to report on all the things we worked on. Here’s a quick outline of some of the most important things that happened:
We’re splitting the app into two separate apps (more on this in a future blog post)
A big refactor of the backend is happening soon to enable the split
We discussed having a system-level Matrix daemon, which different apps could use as a backend (e.g. the two different messaging apps and a calls app)
Matthew explained that room types will be simplified into 1-1, private groups and public groups in the future (which nicely complements our split). We discussed whether 1-1s should be immutable (they should :P)
Matthew explained how end-to-end encryption and calls work in Matrix, and how we could get them in Fractal
We came up with an initial design for multi-account (which basically consists of an account chooser at startup, and a separate window for each account)
We discussed a design for read receipts. Not quite done yet, but we’re on the right path, I think.
We talked about what it will take to make Fractal work on mobile. Not too big of a problem design-wise, but we’ll need Rust bindings for libhandy and emeus
Eisha will be investigating i18n, because we really want to make the app translatable (currently this is hard to do because we use Rust)
Julian will be working on a big message history UI refactor/redesign, as well as other UI stuff, such as user account settings
There is a huge number of message types we don’t support yet and we discussed the design for most of them (including in-app viewers and a history of sent files)
We fought our way though the garbage fire that is the Join and History settings in Riot, and emerged with a design that isn’t terrible (thanks Dorota and Julian!)
Thanks everyone for attending, Epitech and Alexandre for the venue, and Purism for sponsoring the hackfest! It was amazingly productive to have everyone in one place, and I look forward to seeing you all at GUADEC in July
For the past few months, I’ve been contributing to a new group messaging app called Fractal. Its aim is to be so good that we can maybe, eventually, finally replace IRC as the primary communication channel for GNOME development.
IRC is old
Though IRC has been around forever, it’s hardly a good user experience by today’s standards, and can be a significant hurdle to onboarding new contributors (especially non-technical ones). Some of the main issues are:
No easy way to use it from mobile
You can only receive messages while online
Sending images or files is only possible via URL
This has led to some free software projects going so far as to use proprietary services such as Slack. However, even then you’re stuck with an Electron app, which is slow and not integrated with the desktop at all.
Enter the Matrix
The Matrix protocol is a modern alternative to IRC. It provides features such as persistence, inline media, and multi-device syncing. Importantly for GNOME, it is also backwards-compatible to IRC using bridges, allowing us to use the fancy new Matrix features without being cut off from the rest of the community.
Over the past few years, some GNOME developers have started using Matrix, but the lack of a good native client has held back adoption.
And that’s where Fractal comes in: It’s a native Matrix client for GNOME, with an interface focused on the IRC use case (discussions in large, high-volume rooms). We want it to be a fast, native alternative to Slack that can compete on UX, and doesn’t require non-free network services.
I started contributing in late October, when the app was still called Guillotine, and looked like this:
I got involved after Daniel Garcia Moreno, the app’s primary developer, mentioned that he was looking for a designer to help out with his Matrix app on #gnome-design. We then started working on revamping the somewhat haphazardly designed interface, and making it look like a proper GNOME app.
Over the past few months the community has grown from just Daniel and I to over 120 people in our Matrix room, and a number of regular contributors. We’ve redesigned every part of the app (except for the room directory), and added a number of small but essential features, such as invites, room creation, and username autocomplete.
The app now looks like this (though the design is still evolving quite rapidly):
For the past months we’ve mainly been working on overhauling the interface, but we haven’t added many new features. As most of the foundational interface work is done now, we can start planning larger new initiatives.
That’s why next month (May 10th-13th) we’re going to have a Fractal Hackfest in Strasbourg. The core contributors will meet for the first time and discuss exciting new things, such as a better onboarding flow, a new responsive layout, and support for more Matrix features.
Among the people joining the hackfest will be Matthew from Matrix, and some of my coworkers from Purism. It will be a great opportunity for plotting future collaborations.
I’m very happy to announce that I’ve joined Purism. It’s awesome to be working for a company that not only cares about software freedom, but also has Ethical Design as a core principle. My role there is UI/UX designer on the Librem 5, a phone built from the ground up to run free software and GNU/Linux.
As a past user of first Firefox OS and then Ubuntu Touch, I couldn’t be more excited about this. Unlike these previous failed efforts, the Librem 5 is focused on freedom and privacy, because it’s made by people who share that philosophy. It’s using PureOS (a full GNU/Linux distro based on Debian), instead of a completely different technology stack with Android drivers (like Firefox OS and Ubuntu Touch did). To make things even sweeter, the UI will be GTK-based, and we’re using upstream GNOME apps (which we’re adapting with a responsive layout). We’ll also be working on new applications for the phone, such as Calls and Messages, which will work on the desktop as well. We want as much of this work to go upstream, so it can benefit all GNOME users.
It’s still early days, but some of the work around apps should become more concrete in the coming weeks, so expect phone-related discussions in #gnome-design. Let’s make a killer GNOME phone!
Unless you’re one of a very lucky few, you probably use apps with title bars. In case you’ve never come across that term, title bars are the largely empty bars at the top of some application windows. They contain only the window title and a close button, and are completely separate from the window’s content. This makes them very inflexible, as they can not contain any additional UI elements, or integrate with the application window’s content.
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. Sadly, these include some of the most important productivity apps people rely on every day (e.g. LibreOffice, Inkscape, and Blender).
Thereareways to hide title bars on maximized and tiled windows, but these do not (and will never) work on Wayland (Note: I’m talking about GNOME Shell on Wayland here, not other desktops). All window decorations are client-side on Wayland (even when they look like title bars), so there is no way to hide them at a window manager level.
The CSD Initiative
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.
That is why I’m hereby announcing the CSD Initiative, an effort to get as many applications as possible to drop title bars in favor of client-side decorations. This won’t be quick or easy, and will require work on many levels. However, with Wayland already being shipped as the default session by some distros, it’s high time we got started on this.
For a glimpse at what this kind of transition will look like in practice, we can look to Firefox and Chromium. Chromium has recently shipped GNOME-style client-side decorations in v63, and Firefox has them in experimental CSD builds. These are great examples for other apps to follow, as they show that apps don’t have to be 100% native GTK in order to use CSD effectively.
What is the goal?
This initiative doesn’t aim to make all apps look and act exactly like native GNOME apps. If an app uses GTK, we do of course want it to respect the GNOME HIG. However, it isn’t realistic to assume that apps like Blender or Telegram will ever look like perfectly native GNOME apps. In these cases, we’re are aiming for functional, not visual consistency. For example, it’s fine if an Electron app has custom close/maximize/minimize icons, as long as they use the same metaphors as the native icons.
Thus, our goal is for as many apps as possible to have the following properites:
No title bar
Native-looking close/maximize/minimize icons
Respects the setting for showing/hiding minimize and maximize
Respects the setting for buttons to be on the left/right side of the window
Which apps are affected?
Basically, all applications not using GTK3 (and a few that do use GTK3). That includes GTK2, Qt, and Electron apps. There’s a list of some of the most popular affected apps on this initiative’s Wiki page.
The process will be different for each app, and the changes required will range from “can be done in a weekend” to “holy shit we have to redesign the entire app”. For example, GTK3 apps are relatively easy to port to header bars because they can just use the native GTK component. GTK2 apps first need to be ported to GTK3, which is a major undertaking in itself. Some apps will require major redesigns, because removing the title bar goes hand in hand with moving from old-style menu bars to more modern, contextual menus.
Many Electron apps might be low-hanging fruit, because they already use CSD on macOS. This means it should be possible to make this happen on GNU/Linux as well without major changes to the app. However, some underlying work in Electron to expose the necessary settings to apps might be required first.
Apps with custom design languages will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, Telegram’s design should be easy to adapt to a header bar layout. Removing the title bar and adding window buttons in the toolbar would come very close to a native GNOME header bar functionally.
How can I help?
The first step will be making a list of all the apps affected by this initiative. You can add apps to the list on this Wiki page.
Then we’ll need to do the following things for each app:
Talk to the maintainers and convince them that this is a good idea
Do the design work of adapting the layout
Figure out what is required at a technical level
Implement the new layout and get it merged
In addition, we need to evaluate what we can do at the toolkit level to make it easier to implement CSD (e.g. in Electron or Qt apps). This will require lots of work from lots of people with different skills, and nothing will happen overnight. However, the sooner we start, the sooner we’ll live in an awesome CSD-only future.
And that’s where you come in! Are you a developer who needs help updating your app to a header bar layout? A designer who would like to help redesign apps? A web developer who’d like to help make CSD work seamlessly in Electron apps? Come to #gnome-design on IRC/Matrix and talk to us. We can do this!
There have been some misunderstandings about what I meant regarding server-side decorations on Wayland. As far as I know (and take this with a grain of salt), Wayland uses CSD by default, but it is possible to add SSD support via protocol extensions. KDE has proposed such a protocol, and support for this protocol has been contributed to GTK by the Sway developers. However, GNOME Shell does not support it and its developers have stated that they have no plans to support it at the moment.
This is what I was referring to by saying that “it will never work on Wayland”. I can see how this could be misinterpreted from the point of view of other desktop environments but that was not my intention, it was simply unfortunate wording. I have updated the relevant part of this post to clarify.
Also, some people seem to have taken from this that we plan on lobbying for removing title bar support from third-party apps in a way that affects other desktops. The goal of this initiative is for GNOME users to get a better experience by having fewer applications with badly integrated title bars on their systems. That doesn’t preclude applications from having title bars on different desktops, or having a preference for this (like Chromium does, for example).
Last week I took part in the GNOME Shell UX Hackfest in London, along with other designers and developers from GNOME and adjacent communities such as Endless, Pop!, and elementary. We talked about big, fundamental things, like app launching and the lock/login screen, as well as some smaller items, like the first-run experience and legacy window decorations.
I won’t recap everything in detail, because Cassidy from System76 has already done a great job at that. Instead, I want to highlight some of the things I found most interesting.
One of my main interests for this hackfest was to push for better animations and making better use of the spatial dimension in GNOME Shell. If you’ve seen my GUADEC Talk, you know about my grand plan to introduce semantic animations across all of GNOME, and the Shell is obviously no exception. I’m happy to report that we made good progress towards a clear, unified spatial model for GNOME Shell last week.
Everything we came up with are very early stage concepts at this point, but I’m especially excited about the possibility of having the login/unlock screen be part of the same space as the rest of the system, and making the transition between these fluid and semantic.
Another utopian dream of mine is a tiling-first desktop. I’ve long felt that overlapping windows are not the best way to do multitasking on screens, and tiling is something I’m very interested in exploring as an alternative. Tiling window managers have long done this, but their UX is usually subpar. However, some text editors like Atom have pretty nice graphical implementations of tiling window managers nowadays, and I feel like this approach might be scalable enough to cover most OS-level use cases as well (perhaps with something like a picture-in-picture mode for certain use cases).
We touched on this topic at various points during this hackfest, especially in relation to the resizable half-tiling introduced in 3.26, and the coming quarter-tiling. However, our current tech stack and the design of most apps are not well suited to a tiling-first approach, so this is unlikely ot happen anytime soon. That said, I want to keep exploring alternatives to free-floating, overlapping windows, and will report on my progress here.
Header bars everywhere
A topic we only briefly touched on, but which I care about a lot, was legacy window decorations (aka title bars). Even though header bars have been around for a while, there are still a lot of apps we all rely on with ugly, space-eating bars at the top (Inkscape, I’m looking at you).
We discussed possible solutions such as conditionally hiding title bars in certain situations, but finally decided that the best course of action is to work with apps upstream to add support for header bars. Firefox and Chromium are currently in the process of implementing this, and we want to encourage other third-party apps to do the same.
This will be a long and difficult process, but it will result in better apps for everyone, instead of hacky partial solutions. The work on this has just begun, and I’ll blog more about it as this initiative develops.
In summary, I think the hackfest set a clear direction for the future of GNOME Shell, and one that I’m excited to work towards. I’d like to thank the GNOME Foundation for sponsoring my attendance, Allan and Mario for organizing the hackfest, and everyone who attended for being there, and being awesome! Until next time!