3 ms·

Window title bar heights are awful. Title bars at the best of times are just a useful thing to grab with the mouse pointer to move the window around, but they

Window title bar heights are awful. Title bars at the best of times are just a useful thing to grab with the mouse pointer to move the window around, but they don't have to be about twice the size of those in Windows and MacOS. If anything, on Windows the trend is to use the redundant window space to add more information. I've never quite understood this decision on Linux. If anything it seems a little contrary to linux usage.

cup-of-tea 8y ago
They look about the same as Windoze 10 to me, and they do seem to have stuff in them, so not completely redundant. I still don't like it, I like extremely minimal window borders (I hold alt to move windows around). But you can get that on Linux, and only Linux.
yellowapple 8y ago
It's a GNOME3 thing, not a Linux thing. Most other desktop environments (including GNOME2/MATE) have more sane defaults. As for the reason why GNOME3 has window handles the size of interstate freeways: it makes them easier to move around with a touchscreen.
- majewsky 8y ago
  > it makes them easier to move around with a touchscreen. Ok, next question: Why do you need window handles the size of interstate freeways on devices without touchscreens? It's not like it's impossible to detect the current hardware configuration.
  - alxlaz 8y ago
    If you want to see what Armaggedon looks like, try suggesting that something should be user-customizable or that it should change depending on the underlying configuration on a Gnome mailing list.
  - VSTN 8y ago
    >Ok, next question: Why do you need window handles the size of interstate freeways on devices without touchscreens? It's not like it's impossible to detect the current hardware configuration. Because options run counter to the gnome dev philosophy. That can be traced back to the original Havoc Pennington rant to defend Gnome 2.0 (which was actually a controversial release just like every major gnome release since 1.4) : https://ometer.com/preferences.html https://ometer.com/preferences.html >Preferences substantively damage QA and testing. >As someone who reads dozens of bug reports per day, and occasionally fixes a couple, I can tell you that it’s extremely common to find a bug that only happens if some certain combination of options are enabled. >Upshot: more preferences means fewer real features, and more bugs. Of course, what you propose isn't a preference but automatic detection, but the point still remains valid in terms of their philosophy. >One of the hardest lessons of GUI programming is that hard coding behavior can be the Right Thing. Programmers are taught to make everything generic and infinitely flexible. The problem is that the more generic and infinitely flexible your UI is, the more similar it is to a programming language. Lisp is not a good user interface. These are the same reasons why they canned anything related to screensavers and the likes. Gnome should not be customized, should have brand identity, should not have options whether they are user selected or automatically configured. The UI should be recognizable no matter which device Gnome is run on. Anything that changes confuses the user. If the user installs gnome on a laptop with a touchscreen, what should an automatic configurator the likes you suggest do? make everything tiny so that it's friendliest to screen space since it's a laptop and touchscreen is only sparsely used? or make everything big?
    - chris_wot 8y ago
      A touchscreen is a different device than a desktop computer. Would windowing make sense on an iPad? Probably not. So why make people use them? Same goes with a desktop - they are designed for the mouse, so design it to use a mouse and do t treat it like a touchscreen. This often means UI preferences. And I’m afraid you cannot satisfy everyone’s preference. Havoc Pennington was right to a degree, but they have tended to take it too far.

cup-of-tea 8y ago

They look about the same as Windoze 10 to me, and they do seem to have stuff in them, so not completely redundant. I still don't like it, I like extremely minimal window borders (I hold alt to move windows around). But you can get that on Linux, and only Linux.

yellowapple 8y ago

It's a GNOME3 thing, not a Linux thing. Most other desktop environments (including GNOME2/MATE) have more sane defaults. As for the reason why GNOME3 has window handles the size of interstate freeways: it makes them easier to move around with a touchscreen.

majewsky 8y ago
> it makes them easier to move around with a touchscreen. Ok, next question: Why do you need window handles the size of interstate freeways on devices without touchscreens? It's not like it's impossible to detect the current hardware configuration.
- alxlaz 8y ago
  If you want to see what Armaggedon looks like, try suggesting that something should be user-customizable or that it should change depending on the underlying configuration on a Gnome mailing list.
- VSTN 8y ago
  >Ok, next question: Why do you need window handles the size of interstate freeways on devices without touchscreens? It's not like it's impossible to detect the current hardware configuration. Because options run counter to the gnome dev philosophy. That can be traced back to the original Havoc Pennington rant to defend Gnome 2.0 (which was actually a controversial release just like every major gnome release since 1.4) : https://ometer.com/preferences.html https://ometer.com/preferences.html >Preferences substantively damage QA and testing. >As someone who reads dozens of bug reports per day, and occasionally fixes a couple, I can tell you that it’s extremely common to find a bug that only happens if some certain combination of options are enabled. >Upshot: more preferences means fewer real features, and more bugs. Of course, what you propose isn't a preference but automatic detection, but the point still remains valid in terms of their philosophy. >One of the hardest lessons of GUI programming is that hard coding behavior can be the Right Thing. Programmers are taught to make everything generic and infinitely flexible. The problem is that the more generic and infinitely flexible your UI is, the more similar it is to a programming language. Lisp is not a good user interface. These are the same reasons why they canned anything related to screensavers and the likes. Gnome should not be customized, should have brand identity, should not have options whether they are user selected or automatically configured. The UI should be recognizable no matter which device Gnome is run on. Anything that changes confuses the user. If the user installs gnome on a laptop with a touchscreen, what should an automatic configurator the likes you suggest do? make everything tiny so that it's friendliest to screen space since it's a laptop and touchscreen is only sparsely used? or make everything big?
  - chris_wot 8y ago
    A touchscreen is a different device than a desktop computer. Would windowing make sense on an iPad? Probably not. So why make people use them? Same goes with a desktop - they are designed for the mouse, so design it to use a mouse and do t treat it like a touchscreen. This often means UI preferences. And I’m afraid you cannot satisfy everyone’s preference. Havoc Pennington was right to a degree, but they have tended to take it too far.