The last thing I want is an option for this. My gosh, imagine the amount of options you would end up with if every single design choice was turned into an option. Who in the world would like that many options.
I’m happy to just have a design team work on whatever they think looks better and works best for the user experience, and implement it after some rounds of public review and testing. This looks neat enough to me - slightly less cluttered than what my current Nautilus window looks like while maintaining the same functionality.
Seriously, I envy you guys. Every time I try to use Plasma, I end up spending all my time tweaking the desktop, and by the time I’m done, I realize I’ve just recreated the Gnome workflow…
I had to look up Fitts’s law, and I’m not sure I get it. Could you explain what you mean?
ETA: I kinda feel like mine was about KDE not being a fit for me personally, and yours was a slam on Gnome rather than a statement of personal preference.
I had to look up Fitts’s law, and I’m not sure I get it. Could you explain what you mean?
basically; the speed that it takes to click a button is dependant on the size of the button and the distance from the cursor. however, buttons at the edge of the screen have effectively infinite size, as they can’t be overshot. the most used actions should be placed there, as they are the easiest to click by muscle memory (particularly the corners, as they have infinite size in both dimensions)
on windows, kde, cinnamon, etc.; by default the bottom left is start, the bottom right is show desktop (this one i can’t explain), and the top right is close maximised window. the top of the screen is also used for other window-related actions like minimise, restore, change csd tabs, etc.
gnome flouts this by having most of the top of the screen doing nothing (most of it is completely empty) apart from rarely used actions like calendar and power. and the bottom right and left doing nothing[1]
did i explain well?
ETA: I kinda feel like mine was about KDE not being a fit for me personally, and yours was a slam on Gnome rather than a statement of personal preference.
nah it was very much a personal thing: some people like having a minimal and clutter-free feature set; i like having as many features as possible, because then i find features i didn’t even know i liked.[2]
as for the top bar: this one confuses me - it just seems objectively bad. but obviously it’s not as some people clearly like it. i haven’t had anyone actually explain to me why, though
The last thing I want is an option for this. My gosh, imagine the amount of options you would end up with if every single design choice was turned into an option. Who in the world would like that many options.
I’m happy to just have a design team work on whatever they think looks better and works best for the user experience, and implement it after some rounds of public review and testing. This looks neat enough to me - slightly less cluttered than what my current Nautilus window looks like while maintaining the same functionality.
KDE fans?
Awww, Plasma fans, you know I’m playin’.
yep, that’s me
Seriously, I envy you guys. Every time I try to use Plasma, I end up spending all my time tweaking the desktop, and by the time I’m done, I realize I’ve just recreated the Gnome workflow…
every time i try to use gnome, i end up spending all my time going “dammit, where are all the bleeding features”
(also the lack of fitts’ law adherence due to that pointless bar at the top)
I had to look up Fitts’s law, and I’m not sure I get it. Could you explain what you mean?
ETA: I kinda feel like mine was about KDE not being a fit for me personally, and yours was a slam on Gnome rather than a statement of personal preference.
basically; the speed that it takes to click a button is dependant on the size of the button and the distance from the cursor. however, buttons at the edge of the screen have effectively infinite size, as they can’t be overshot. the most used actions should be placed there, as they are the easiest to click by muscle memory (particularly the corners, as they have infinite size in both dimensions)
on windows, kde, cinnamon, etc.; by default the bottom left is start, the bottom right is show desktop (this one i can’t explain), and the top right is close maximised window. the top of the screen is also used for other window-related actions like minimise, restore, change csd tabs, etc.
gnome flouts this by having most of the top of the screen doing nothing (most of it is completely empty) apart from rarely used actions like calendar and power. and the bottom right and left doing nothing[1]
did i explain well?
nah it was very much a personal thing: some people like having a minimal and clutter-free feature set; i like having as many features as possible, because then i find features i didn’t even know i liked.[2]
as for the top bar: this one confuses me - it just seems objectively bad. but obviously it’s not as some people clearly like it. i haven’t had anyone actually explain to me why, though
i mean they also ignore it in other ways, too ↩︎
i didn’t know how useful a terminal embedded in the file manager would be until i started using dolphin, now i can’t do without it ↩︎