Re: scrollbars [was: Re: really attracting developers]

[phil taylor]

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 12:15 +0800, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Phil Taylor wrote:
> 
> > 
> > We are talking about GUI's on Linux, not GUI's in general. The Windows
> > GUI is popular because Windows is popular and you cant have one without
> > the other.
> 
> windows is forced on you. and it has been around so long that people
> think thats thats how computers are supposed to work.
> 
> > Linux is different - you have the choice of GUI's, and both KDE and
> > Gnome are already established and are highly configureable. People are
> > used to having these facilities, and generally people dont like giving
> > things up. I am sure that if someone were to release an configureable
> > add on GUI for Windows (assuming it were technically possible which it
> > is not) it would get a lot of attention. But then Windows users have
> > never had that facility, so they dont miss it.
> > 
> 
> yes thats right. thats why few people make a mess of their windows
> desktop configuration. if windows made it configurable it will be worse.
> its very easy to get x configuration wrong and not get a desktop at all.
> and its not hard to imagine how bad windows would be if it is like that.
> 
> thats the same reason why the mac have limited user installable parts.
> and even less configurability in the gui. sure you  can change themes
> but you cant change the basic gui elements. like have the scrollbars and
> menubars in different locations from one computer to the next.
> 
> less configurability is so much better. its when you have bad design
> that you need customisations.

I think we are getting confused between asthetics and "bad design". The
look and feel is highly subjective. There is no overall "bad" or "good"
but simply what appeals to an individual. Anymore than there is absolute
good or bad room decor. I have a room in my house painted dark green -
lots of people would hate that colour scheme, but i like it.

I am very glad that Gnome is themable, because the default theme sucks -
its like GNUstep, very dark and dingy. Business like but there is no fun
or lightness in it. Its like the difference between concrete and a
garden.

Windows default colur scheme sucks to, but you can change it a little.

I do think (and this might be actually where you are coming from) that
GUIs can be too configurable. I am quite happy accepting where the
designer put the scroll bars in the all the major GUIs including
GNUstep. But I like to be able to change the colour/pattern of the
scroll bar.


> 
> if we could not agree where scrollbars should be then scrollbars are bad
> and i would rather not have them. same goes for the menubar.
> 
> > So i stand by what I have said. Gnome and KDE are established and highly
> > configurable. If GNUstep si to compete or even displace these GUI's it
> > has to be percieved to be at least as up to date as they are. GUI's of
> 
> no thats not going to work.

If you mean that GNUstep wont replace either of these GUIs, i agree. It
seems highly unlikely.

> 
> >> That being said, I'm glad that themes and different menu styles are
> >> available in GNUstep and I think the default theme for GNUstep should
> >> be Nesedah.
> >>
> > 
> > I am surprised that this is the case, since you never get to see any
> > evidence of it. Why not make it more obvious? For example every time
> > Gnome or KDE release a new version they supply new splash screens,
> > colour schemes and themes. It cant take that much developer resources to
> > at least change a few colours.
> > 
> 
> yeah and you know how much effort is wasted on getting these things to
> work? M$ and Apple has big teams and the linux desktop people cant match
> that. and the more the linux desktop tries to compete on the same terms
> with windows and mac it will never be able to catch up. new ways need to
> be found. step out of the box people. WIMP is not the future.
> 

Surely putting in a new desktop background image or splash screen image
doesnt require 5 man years of testing? I can change the background of my
Gnome desktop in about 2 seconds, and its never failed yet.

> >>> When you design an interface, you cannot assume that what you like
> >>> someone else will like. Perhaps thats obvious.
> >>
> >> Well, it's more than just what somebody will like.  In the case of
> >> Apple and NeXT, significant psychological research went into studying
> >> the way humans read, write, and interact with computer interfaces.  As
> >> an example, we read from left-to-right in Western cultures and this
> >> effects our priority when performing a visual scan of an object. 
> >> That's a fact that cannot be denied and has nothing to do with
> >> subjective appraisal of an interface.
> > 
> > I guess all that research is irrelevant from the perspective of any
> > particular user, such as myself (or you). I know what I like and what I
> > am comfortable with. I basically dont give a rats arse that some
> > researcher in Cupertino thinks the scroll bar should be on the left if i
> 
> hah! until M$ decides its should be on the left! im sure the entire
> world will agree. like a flock of sheep!
> 

It is often the case that something becomes acceptable after you get
used to it. Once you get used to something it becomes entrenched and
then anything different becomes hard to assimilate (in a short period of
time).

I am sure all Americans think that driving on the right side of the road
is "normal" while Australians think driving on the left is normal. Is
one right and one wrong?

> 
> > Its these reasons why Windows is still so popular. You can install
> > software and find it afterwards.
> > 
> 
> really? it momentum thats sustaining it. and people who is unwilling to
> find something new.

I think you will find that the average user, who is not a hacker or an
IT developer, will not find it acceptable to have to search for an
application once you have installed it. Indeed it is NOT acceptable in
any sense of the word. And developers of Linux should hand their head in
shame that they have made such an almighty bodge up of installing
software.  Probably the arrogance of software developers is what
prevents them admitting this and doing something to change it.

If i had been even in part responsible for the design of the Unix
directory structure and the system that is laughably referred "oackage
management (i think package mis-management is nearer the mark) i would
conceal the fact from everyone and go hide somewhere. THis aspect of
Linux/Unix is appaling and anyone who says different is deluded or
seriously lacking in IQ.

> 
> there is a significant number of people forced to use windows who needs
> better solutions and IT people including are ignoring them.
> 

Agreed. Windows sucks in a lot of areas. Also its made by Microsoft.
QED. 

But then Linux aint so great in a lot of areas either.

> - --
> things i hate about my linux pc:
> 
> 1. it takes more than a second to boot up
> 2. keeps asking about filenames and directories
> 3. does not remember what i was working on yesterday
> 4. does not remember all changes i have ever made
> 5. cannot figure out necessary settings by itself
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFE/kt2yihxuQOYt8wRAkmeAJ4mqyYzw9o/hDiJjHPU8tNbJA4MjgCgi2rW
> GO5ijKDPQ51Kz2zgUIfKXgQ=
> =P3Ho
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----