2 ms·

>The hamburger menus were done to save space and reduce clutter, not out of any desire to be a tablet app. "Save space"? That's a laugh. Reducing clutter i

>The hamburger menus were done to save space and reduce clutter, not out of any desire to be a tablet app. "Save space"? That's a laugh. Reducing clutter is ill defined and probably subjective, but saving space? Saving it for what? The default window decorations, widgets, etc are bloated, not slim and compact (as they would be, if they were saving space.) Everything has huge margins, big buttons, and empty voids. "Saving space" is not a principle Gnome cares about. Do you know what huge margins and big buttons are actually good for? Touchscreen interfaces designed for fat fingering. That's what Gnome cares about.

zxzax 5y ago
Again, what you are saying is not correct. You may be comparing their designs to other apps developed for other desktops using other toolkits, but that's not what is influencing GNOME. The space is saved compared to previous designs that were used by GNOME. Please consider comparing an old style GTK app with a new style GTK app: Inkscape, old style: https://media.inkscape.org/media/resources/file/inkscape-0.48-ferrari.png https://media.inkscape.org/media/resources/file/inkscape-0.4... GNOME builder, new style: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-builder/raw/master/doc/help/figures/minimap.png https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-builder/raw/master/doc/... The old style has four bars at the top (titlebar, menubar, toolbar, secondary toolbar). The new style merges them all into one bar and moves the menus into the hamburger menu. The margins may be bigger in the new style but ultimately, space is saved and the UI chrome is reduced. Also, GNOME Builder is not an application designed totally around touch screens -- it's a text editor, for typing into. I sympathize if you don't like this style of app (and I encourage you to use different apps if you were used to having a lot of menus and toolbars, and you don't like the new style of GNOME apps), but what you are saying about the design goals and motivations does not match what the developers are actually doing.

zxzax 5y ago

Again, what you are saying is not correct. You may be comparing their designs to other apps developed for other desktops using other toolkits, but that's not what is influencing GNOME. The space is saved compared to previous designs that were used by GNOME. Please consider comparing an old style GTK app with a new style GTK app: Inkscape, old style: https://media.inkscape.org/media/resources/file/inkscape-0.48-ferrari.png https://media.inkscape.org/media/resources/file/inkscape-0.4... GNOME builder, new style: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-builder/raw/master/doc/help/figures/minimap.png https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-builder/raw/master/doc/... The old style has four bars at the top (titlebar, menubar, toolbar, secondary toolbar). The new style merges them all into one bar and moves the menus into the hamburger menu. The margins may be bigger in the new style but ultimately, space is saved and the UI chrome is reduced. Also, GNOME Builder is not an application designed totally around touch screens -- it's a text editor, for typing into. I sympathize if you don't like this style of app (and I encourage you to use different apps if you were used to having a lot of menus and toolbars, and you don't like the new style of GNOME apps), but what you are saying about the design goals and motivations does not match what the developers are actually doing.