4 ms·
The point is that those corners are some of the most important screen real estate, taken advantage by other DEs. Take Windows, for example. Upper-right=close,
by acabal 15y ago
The point is that those corners are some of the most important screen real estate, taken advantage by other DEs. Take Windows, for example. Upper-right=close, upper-left=context menu, bottom-left=start menu, bottom-right=show desktop.
Compare to Gnome Shell: Upper-right=settings/account menu (rarely used IMHO), upper-left=activities, bottom-right=missed notifications, bottom-left=nothing.
Where Windows puts something useful in all 4 corners, G-S only has something useful in 2. Obviously one can argue about what is and what isn't useful, but from a purely objective viewpoint, one can definitely say that Gnome-Shell doesn't take full advantage of those extremely important corners.
As for my other points, for example the top bar: how can you deny that it's mostly wasted space? It's 80% unclickable black bar. That's not "nonsense", that's just how it is. Other DE's put something there: the window menu bar, an activities list, etc.
True that I can get an activities list by pressing super. But that's not "at a glance." That's "at a keypress, then a visual scan, then a click to go back to what I was doing." Most other DE's provide some sort of window overview at an immediate glance, ie., an always-visible taskbar.
I think my other points also stand. I don't doubt that some people do use G-S effectively, but that doesn't mean it isn't deeply flawed. If it weren't, then more people would like it.
- ajross 15y agoUpper right in gnome-shell is where the shutdown and suspend options are. I use them every day. And the upper-left in windows (by which you really mean a maximized windows app -- windows puts nothing there, and I only occasionally have anything maximized) is the "context menu", which is near useless, being duplicated functionality with the existing window buttons. Note that Chrome doesn't use a context menu button, for example. I think arguing that windows puts something "useful" there is disingenuous. Windows merely puts "something" there. I guess the top bar argument is valid, though note that there are a bunch of gnome-shell extensions that like to use the space. And the significantly thicker windows panel is likewise largely a waste of space (just a big bunch of icons duplicating what in gnome-shell would be the overview). Looks: you hate gnome-shell. Good for you. You're not alone, lots of people do. I don't begrudge you your opinions, I'm just calling you out for trying to turn them into "facts" when they clearly aren't.
- fmoralesc 15y agoBut you can't really compare the windows UI with gnome-shell, because they don't have the same workflow. For example, a "show desktop" action in gnome-shell is useless, because there is no good reason to interact with the desktop (it doesn't show icons by default). Now, tell me, under Windows, how many times a day do you use a window's context menu, against, for example, the Start Menu? How many times do you expect a regular user to click on them? Furthermore, how many times can you activate a context menu from that position? Do you always use your windows maximized? You shouldn't optimize the corners of your screen for a windows button (because there might not be a window there). INSERT: the corners in gnome-shell always work the same way, independently of any window state. Having something in every corner of the screen doesn't mean that it is universally useful.
- bkor 15y agoSeems you missed all the design documents made for GNOME 3. Top bar is simplistic at this moment on purpose. There are more ideas behind it. However, just because you can put stuff somewhere, doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so. The idea is to minimize distractions. Not to optimize for mouse clicks, hot corners, etc. Defining your own criteria as the reason to call it deeply flawed it a bit easy IMO.
- acabal 15y agoI'm judging it as it stands now, not as some document somewhere says it might be one day, maybe, if the developers get around to it. If they don't want people judging it, they shouldn't have released it until they felt it was ready to be judged. I'm also judging it by criteria used by many UI experts. How DEs approach Fitt's Law is an important metric. The law exists for a reason, because UI experts found it came up again and again in real-life testing. Defining your own criteria by saying "works for me, wontfix" is also a bit easy.