6 ms·

I fail to see a single use case for terminal transparency. It makes text less readable.

by mseepgood 13y ago

static_typed 13y ago
Surely choice is good? I fail to see a single use for comments that dismiss the right of optionality for others.
- mseepgood 13y ago
  No, choice is poison to a software program and should be avoided unless there are very good reasons to justify an additional option.
  - keithpeter 13y ago
    I would suggest that retaining an option needed by some users with unusual perceptual requirements is a 'very good reason' (Personally, I do leave my XFCE4 desktop on default settings, but I do alter defaults in some packages)
    - jodrellblank 13y ago
      If it was the only terminal emulator, there would be a good reason. The person in the link commenting "PUT IT BACK EVERY OTHER TERMINAL EMULATOR HAS IT" is more baffling. Both wanting choice and options, but at the same time not wanting to have to change when there are other options.
      - keithpeter 13y ago
        "If it was the only terminal emulator, there would be a good reason." Gnome Terminal may (effectively) be the only terminal emulator available to you if you do not have rights to install software or to change default software.
        jodrellblank 13y ago
        If you are in an environment where you have to take what you are given, then whinging to the software developers to add in the functionality your boss won't let you have seems like the wrong move.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Yes, you're right. They should apparently be whining to their boss to use something other than GNOME instead instead of trying to fix their work environment at the source.
        jodrellblank 13y ago
        I'm assuming the said boss would not have approved the update to GNOME without first checking that all the features they require the workforce to have in order to work, are present. Then yes, they should. If the boss gives you lemons, you don't go to the lemon tree and ask if it can make lemons that read email, browse NFS shares and change screensaver settings. You go to your boss and say "just-lemons isn't good enough".
        vacri 13y ago
        When you cook, do you just give people a bowl of nutrient paste, saying "that's all you need to remain functional"? But we'd like something with texture and flavour. "So what, it's not like those things are needed to be functional. You can get by without them."
  - lambda 13y ago
    You know, I understand wanting to put a little pressure back on the "make everything configurable" crowd; there are a lot of software engineers who go a bit overboard on the "just make it an option" approach to design, and then wind up with big, bloated, buggy software that tries to do everything but fails at most of it and is frustrating to configure. However, "choice is poison" is a rather extreme over-compensation for this problem. Sometimes, options really do provide value. And many times, if they are designed correctly, they don't substantially increase cost; if the features are orthogonal and implemented independently, the additional complexity is only linear with the number of features, not quadratic or worse as happens if they are too interrelated. I understand that we want to get away from the "you need to spend hours customizing your environment to make it usable" approach to design that plagues some open source project, but going to the other extreme and saying that "choice is poison" is just as bad.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    This is a baffling opinion to have on HN.
    - cturner 13y ago
      There's plenty of precedent. The plan9 guys were very explicit about not having variable colours in acme. The suckless.org team say that you can configure whatever you like, but only through changing the source code. BeOS aimed to have no configuration and good defaults. I'd rather have something that was well thought through and is internally consistant than a grab-bag of customisation, none of which coexists well - like most linux desktops.
    - Joeboy 13y ago
      I'm not baffled. Giving people fewer options seems like a pretty popular paradigm these days. We tried "Give people choice" in the '90s and '00s, and it turned out people were mostly unimpressed. "Opinionated software" is the paradigm du jour.
- wereHamster 13y ago
  Linux is not about choice (http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/m...) was posted to HN a few days ago.
  - mattacular 13y ago
    And still, a lot of seemingly smart people are baffled by the fact that Linux has failed to penetrate the mainstream OS market for personal computing...
  - mseepgood 13y ago
    Also relevant: http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html This text is the unofficial Gnome UI manifesto. If you don't agree with it then you probably will never be happy with Gnome and should use something else.
  - tobiasu 13y ago
    The personal opinion of Adam Jackson is the ultimate and only truth.
- marssaxman 13y ago
  Choice may be good, but it always comes at a cost. Each choice takes time to design, to code, to test, to document, to support, and most importantly to learn. Software designers should aim to offer the smallest number of options they can get away with.
  - keithpeter 13y ago
    In new software, I can see your point. This issue relates to a removal of a previously available option.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    > Software designers should aim to offer the smallest number of options they can get away with. That's should always be second to providing solutions. Solve the problems that transparency solved first. If you aren't aware of the problems that transparency in terminals provided, then removing it is purely an act of ignorance.
    - mseepgood 13y ago
      The thing is transparency didn't solve any problem. It was just a nerdiness thing.
      - chumpalump 13y ago
        Nerdiness is evolution. Flowers are colorful and fancy to attract bees. Transparent terminals are colourful and fancy to attract hackers (aka users).
      - keithpeter 13y ago
        How do you know? 1) Have you searched the literature on perceptual defects and enablement? If so I'd love to see references. 2) Have you consulted widely on mailing lists that Gnome Terminal users use and checked use cases? If so, can you link to those? I'd like to see them.
      - arjie 13y ago
deathcakes 13y ago
Apparently nor do the Gnome devs. Shame they don't seem interested in listening to justifications.
keithpeter 13y ago
I happen to agree with you and I don't use any degree of transparency in terminal windows. I suspect the issue at hand is the removal of a feature that was available previously without explicit discussion or explanation.
mattacular 13y ago
Do you also fail to see a single use case for politeness? The ticket responder could have taken like ~2 minutes to explain the decision to remove it instead of being exceedingly rude.
amouat 13y ago
I quite commonly use it when I want to see an application behind the terminal e.g. I might be editing code in vim whilst the application or browser window is open in the background. Also, it just looks nice! By having an appropriate background image and playing with the opacity it has a negligible affect on readability.
dsr_ 13y ago
Allowing people to choose their own text colors and backgrounds is inefficient and can make text less readable. There ought to be a small set of allowed combinations that have optimal contrast, referred to by simple names. Allowing people to choose their own fonts can make text less readable. There are only 3 or 4 reasonable choices anyway, so all others should be dropped. Allowing themes to change window decorations can cause confusion and reduce usability. Let's drop that. Having more than one window manager available is inefficient and means that more developer time is wasted in duplicative effort. Only one window manager is needed. Having more than one web browser is inefficient and means duplicated effort. Drop all other browsers. Having more than one Linux distribution is inefficient. Having more than one OS is inefficient. Having more than one system architecture causes needless work. Supporting any NIC that isn't the best makes the system less efficient. Drop inferior NICs.
- mseepgood 13y ago
  I agree with most of your points. Within one product there should not be too much choice. But choice between different products i.e. Linux distributions or operating systems is ok IMHO.
  - acc00 13y ago
    I am pretty sure the comment you are replying to is satire.
    - pekk 13y ago
      Satire on GNOME, or Apple? edit: I think the question is relevant, because part of what is going on here is that projects like Ubuntu and GNOME are taking cues from Apple's success
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Apple supports both transparency and blur on their terminal app, AFAIK...
- 13y ago
diffsir 13y ago
I have a cheat sheet open behind my terminal, for say c-vim keybindings. Instead of switching windows continuously https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660711#c8 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660711#c8 RTFA it does not make text less readable: https://bug698544.bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=243774 https://bug698544.bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment....
- mseepgood 13y ago
  > I have a cheat sheet open behind my terminal, for say c-vim > keybindings. Instead of switching windows continuously Drag the windows side by side with the snap feature. > RTFA it does not make text less readable The text would be more readable with an opaque background.
  - paranoiacblack 13y ago
    Side by side so I have less editing space? I have emacs and terminator split 5 or 6 ways and optionally fullscreened if needed. Being able to read documentation, cheat sheets, watch videos, live reload, and handle issues while not switching windows through my terminal is a giant productivity boost. Side-by-side just makes both parts less enjoyable, especially on a small laptop screen.
    - justinhj 13y ago
      I do the same. I make notes on a web page, book or slide deck in emacs by setting transparency. If someone came along and removed it to just because of internal code changes I don't care about I would also be angrily posting on bug reports. http://justinsboringpage.blogspot.ca/2009/10/transparent-emacs-on-windows.html http://justinsboringpage.blogspot.ca/2009/10/transparent-ema...
    - sbrother 13y ago
      I do the same, and setting terminal transparency is usually the first change I make to a new box after importing my .emacs. With your terminal split at least 4 ways stuffing it over on one side of the screen is a non-starter. And even with multiple monitors, I find I can work faster if I can glance at the API docs without having to change my gaze, rather than having to find my place in code again each time I look away.
maaku 13y ago
Small screens.
eterps 13y ago
If you use a big screen your brain will be able to refocus faster when you look from one side to the screen to the other and back again when there are more recognizable patterns in the background.
- riobard 13y ago
  Any study proving this?
jasonlotito 13y ago
How can I use a full screen terminal window and still read documentation in that same screen?
ISL 13y ago
Transparency makes me happy. With aterm (transparent only to backgrounds, not other windows) and an imagemagick script to shade backgrounds, I get to have pretty much any photo I want as a background, and it doesn't impact my work. Only exception: astronomical photos with lots of stars. Very hard to resolve a white '.' character. Shading script is short. Here it is for reference: #!/bin/bash # should set my background and darken the image for aterm # imagemagick documentation here: # http://www.imagemagick.org/script/command-line-options.php#fx convert $@ -fx 'u/2.0' ~/.shadedbackground.jpg fbsetbg -c ~/.shadedbackground.jpg And, my aterm options: aterm -tr -sl 10000 -fg white -bg black Terminals that permit a dynamic view of obscured windows are also occasionally useful. For example - keeping an eye on small process-monitoring gui while continuing to code.
mpyne 13y ago
Are you sure you're aware of how it's implemented? In a good terminal (e.g. konsole) the text remains fully opaque while only the background becomes transparent. This is more difficult than simply setting a window-wide opacity, which is why the terminal must have its own support for it. So you maintain the readability benefit while still being able to see major changes to the window behind the terminal if necessary (something which I have found occasionally useful).
- 0x0 13y ago
  Agree 100%. Even OS X's built-in Terminal.app offers this; there's even a blur effect on the transparent background which is pretty awesome.
  - joosters 13y ago
    Yes! I never understood having transparent terminals before, but one day I discovered that configuring a slight amount of transparency, together with the blur, can be really useful. The terminal still stays clear to read.
berkut 13y ago
Not if it's done subtly (5-8% transparency) - if you've got multiple windows in a screen, it greatly enhances context in terms of what windows are where.
elithrar 13y ago
> I fail to see a single use case for terminal transparency. It makes text less readable. I've always liked it for the ability to see/read documentation on a window behind the terminal. Specific use cases include referring to man pages, API docs and the like where I can't just copy+paste something and/or need to check config.conf against the settings/defaults in online docs. It's especially useful on smaller screens where I don't have the luxury of having a 80-char wide terminal side-by-side with a browser window (and avoiding horizontal scrolling).
wode 13y ago
You want a user case? To read code, check API information or shortcuts through the window you're working in. My screen estate at work is severely limited. Also, it just looks better, and that matters, because I spend a lot of time in terminal windows. I haven't been a Gnome user for many years though... Exactly for reasons like this. They have removed a few features too many. IIRC, last time I tried to log in with a Gnome session to see if anything had improved, I couldn't turn off cursor blinking in the terminal. I've been using Linux since way before Gnome existed, and it does piss me off that (from the perspective of a power user) it's less usable now after all those years than it was in the first few years of its existence. Gnome turned on its own users long ago, and I think the year of the Linux desktop might be further now than ever, especially for the Gnome project in its current form. It's an illusion to attract new users if even the old ones don't want to use it anymore. I wish the Gnome project good luck, but they are clearly sailing a different sea.

I fail to see a single use case for terminal transparency. It makes text less readable.

static_typed 13y ago

Surely choice is good? I fail to see a single use for comments that dismiss the right of optionality for others.

mseepgood 13y ago
No, choice is poison to a software program and should be avoided unless there are very good reasons to justify an additional option.
- keithpeter 13y ago
  I would suggest that retaining an option needed by some users with unusual perceptual requirements is a 'very good reason' (Personally, I do leave my XFCE4 desktop on default settings, but I do alter defaults in some packages)
  - jodrellblank 13y ago
    If it was the only terminal emulator, there would be a good reason. The person in the link commenting "PUT IT BACK EVERY OTHER TERMINAL EMULATOR HAS IT" is more baffling. Both wanting choice and options, but at the same time not wanting to have to change when there are other options.
    - keithpeter 13y ago
      "If it was the only terminal emulator, there would be a good reason." Gnome Terminal may (effectively) be the only terminal emulator available to you if you do not have rights to install software or to change default software.
      - jodrellblank 13y ago
        If you are in an environment where you have to take what you are given, then whinging to the software developers to add in the functionality your boss won't let you have seems like the wrong move.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Yes, you're right. They should apparently be whining to their boss to use something other than GNOME instead instead of trying to fix their work environment at the source.
        jodrellblank 13y ago
        I'm assuming the said boss would not have approved the update to GNOME without first checking that all the features they require the workforce to have in order to work, are present. Then yes, they should. If the boss gives you lemons, you don't go to the lemon tree and ask if it can make lemons that read email, browse NFS shares and change screensaver settings. You go to your boss and say "just-lemons isn't good enough".
        vacri 13y ago
        When you cook, do you just give people a bowl of nutrient paste, saying "that's all you need to remain functional"? But we'd like something with texture and flavour. "So what, it's not like those things are needed to be functional. You can get by without them."
- lambda 13y ago
  You know, I understand wanting to put a little pressure back on the "make everything configurable" crowd; there are a lot of software engineers who go a bit overboard on the "just make it an option" approach to design, and then wind up with big, bloated, buggy software that tries to do everything but fails at most of it and is frustrating to configure. However, "choice is poison" is a rather extreme over-compensation for this problem. Sometimes, options really do provide value. And many times, if they are designed correctly, they don't substantially increase cost; if the features are orthogonal and implemented independently, the additional complexity is only linear with the number of features, not quadratic or worse as happens if they are too interrelated. I understand that we want to get away from the "you need to spend hours customizing your environment to make it usable" approach to design that plagues some open source project, but going to the other extreme and saying that "choice is poison" is just as bad.
- DanBC 13y ago
  This is a baffling opinion to have on HN.
  - cturner 13y ago
    There's plenty of precedent. The plan9 guys were very explicit about not having variable colours in acme. The suckless.org team say that you can configure whatever you like, but only through changing the source code. BeOS aimed to have no configuration and good defaults. I'd rather have something that was well thought through and is internally consistant than a grab-bag of customisation, none of which coexists well - like most linux desktops.
  - Joeboy 13y ago
    I'm not baffled. Giving people fewer options seems like a pretty popular paradigm these days. We tried "Give people choice" in the '90s and '00s, and it turned out people were mostly unimpressed. "Opinionated software" is the paradigm du jour.
wereHamster 13y ago
Linux is not about choice (http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/m...) was posted to HN a few days ago.
- mattacular 13y ago
  And still, a lot of seemingly smart people are baffled by the fact that Linux has failed to penetrate the mainstream OS market for personal computing...
- mseepgood 13y ago
  Also relevant: http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html This text is the unofficial Gnome UI manifesto. If you don't agree with it then you probably will never be happy with Gnome and should use something else.
- tobiasu 13y ago
  The personal opinion of Adam Jackson is the ultimate and only truth.
marssaxman 13y ago
Choice may be good, but it always comes at a cost. Each choice takes time to design, to code, to test, to document, to support, and most importantly to learn. Software designers should aim to offer the smallest number of options they can get away with.
- keithpeter 13y ago
  In new software, I can see your point. This issue relates to a removal of a previously available option.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > Software designers should aim to offer the smallest number of options they can get away with. That's should always be second to providing solutions. Solve the problems that transparency solved first. If you aren't aware of the problems that transparency in terminals provided, then removing it is purely an act of ignorance.
  - mseepgood 13y ago
    The thing is transparency didn't solve any problem. It was just a nerdiness thing.
    - chumpalump 13y ago
      Nerdiness is evolution. Flowers are colorful and fancy to attract bees. Transparent terminals are colourful and fancy to attract hackers (aka users).
    - keithpeter 13y ago
      How do you know? 1) Have you searched the literature on perceptual defects and enablement? If so I'd love to see references. 2) Have you consulted widely on mailing lists that Gnome Terminal users use and checked use cases? If so, can you link to those? I'd like to see them.
    - arjie 13y ago

deathcakes 13y ago

Apparently nor do the Gnome devs. Shame they don't seem interested in listening to justifications.

keithpeter 13y ago

I happen to agree with you and I don't use any degree of transparency in terminal windows. I suspect the issue at hand is the removal of a feature that was available previously without explicit discussion or explanation.

mattacular 13y ago

Do you also fail to see a single use case for politeness? The ticket responder could have taken like ~2 minutes to explain the decision to remove it instead of being exceedingly rude.

amouat 13y ago

I quite commonly use it when I want to see an application behind the terminal e.g. I might be editing code in vim whilst the application or browser window is open in the background. Also, it just looks nice! By having an appropriate background image and playing with the opacity it has a negligible affect on readability.

dsr_ 13y ago

Allowing people to choose their own text colors and backgrounds is inefficient and can make text less readable. There ought to be a small set of allowed combinations that have optimal contrast, referred to by simple names. Allowing people to choose their own fonts can make text less readable. There are only 3 or 4 reasonable choices anyway, so all others should be dropped. Allowing themes to change window decorations can cause confusion and reduce usability. Let's drop that. Having more than one window manager available is inefficient and means that more developer time is wasted in duplicative effort. Only one window manager is needed. Having more than one web browser is inefficient and means duplicated effort. Drop all other browsers. Having more than one Linux distribution is inefficient. Having more than one OS is inefficient. Having more than one system architecture causes needless work. Supporting any NIC that isn't the best makes the system less efficient. Drop inferior NICs.

mseepgood 13y ago
I agree with most of your points. Within one product there should not be too much choice. But choice between different products i.e. Linux distributions or operating systems is ok IMHO.
- acc00 13y ago
  I am pretty sure the comment you are replying to is satire.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Satire on GNOME, or Apple? edit: I think the question is relevant, because part of what is going on here is that projects like Ubuntu and GNOME are taking cues from Apple's success
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Apple supports both transparency and blur on their terminal app, AFAIK...
13y ago

diffsir 13y ago

I have a cheat sheet open behind my terminal, for say c-vim keybindings. Instead of switching windows continuously https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660711#c8 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660711#c8 RTFA it does not make text less readable: https://bug698544.bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=243774 https://bug698544.bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment....

mseepgood 13y ago
> I have a cheat sheet open behind my terminal, for say c-vim > keybindings. Instead of switching windows continuously Drag the windows side by side with the snap feature. > RTFA it does not make text less readable The text would be more readable with an opaque background.
- paranoiacblack 13y ago
  Side by side so I have less editing space? I have emacs and terminator split 5 or 6 ways and optionally fullscreened if needed. Being able to read documentation, cheat sheets, watch videos, live reload, and handle issues while not switching windows through my terminal is a giant productivity boost. Side-by-side just makes both parts less enjoyable, especially on a small laptop screen.
  - justinhj 13y ago
    I do the same. I make notes on a web page, book or slide deck in emacs by setting transparency. If someone came along and removed it to just because of internal code changes I don't care about I would also be angrily posting on bug reports. http://justinsboringpage.blogspot.ca/2009/10/transparent-emacs-on-windows.html http://justinsboringpage.blogspot.ca/2009/10/transparent-ema...
  - sbrother 13y ago
    I do the same, and setting terminal transparency is usually the first change I make to a new box after importing my .emacs. With your terminal split at least 4 ways stuffing it over on one side of the screen is a non-starter. And even with multiple monitors, I find I can work faster if I can glance at the API docs without having to change my gaze, rather than having to find my place in code again each time I look away.

maaku 13y ago

Small screens.

eterps 13y ago

If you use a big screen your brain will be able to refocus faster when you look from one side to the screen to the other and back again when there are more recognizable patterns in the background.

riobard 13y ago
Any study proving this?

jasonlotito 13y ago

How can I use a full screen terminal window and still read documentation in that same screen?

ISL 13y ago

Transparency makes me happy. With aterm (transparent only to backgrounds, not other windows) and an imagemagick script to shade backgrounds, I get to have pretty much any photo I want as a background, and it doesn't impact my work. Only exception: astronomical photos with lots of stars. Very hard to resolve a white '.' character. Shading script is short. Here it is for reference: #!/bin/bash # should set my background and darken the image for aterm # imagemagick documentation here: # http://www.imagemagick.org/script/command-line-options.php#fx convert $@ -fx 'u/2.0' ~/.shadedbackground.jpg fbsetbg -c ~/.shadedbackground.jpg And, my aterm options: aterm -tr -sl 10000 -fg white -bg black Terminals that permit a dynamic view of obscured windows are also occasionally useful. For example - keeping an eye on small process-monitoring gui while continuing to code.

mpyne 13y ago

Are you sure you're aware of how it's implemented? In a good terminal (e.g. konsole) the text remains fully opaque while only the background becomes transparent. This is more difficult than simply setting a window-wide opacity, which is why the terminal must have its own support for it. So you maintain the readability benefit while still being able to see major changes to the window behind the terminal if necessary (something which I have found occasionally useful).

0x0 13y ago
Agree 100%. Even OS X's built-in Terminal.app offers this; there's even a blur effect on the transparent background which is pretty awesome.
- joosters 13y ago
  Yes! I never understood having transparent terminals before, but one day I discovered that configuring a slight amount of transparency, together with the blur, can be really useful. The terminal still stays clear to read.

berkut 13y ago

Not if it's done subtly (5-8% transparency) - if you've got multiple windows in a screen, it greatly enhances context in terms of what windows are where.

elithrar 13y ago

> I fail to see a single use case for terminal transparency. It makes text less readable. I've always liked it for the ability to see/read documentation on a window behind the terminal. Specific use cases include referring to man pages, API docs and the like where I can't just copy+paste something and/or need to check config.conf against the settings/defaults in online docs. It's especially useful on smaller screens where I don't have the luxury of having a 80-char wide terminal side-by-side with a browser window (and avoiding horizontal scrolling).

wode 13y ago

You want a user case? To read code, check API information or shortcuts through the window you're working in. My screen estate at work is severely limited. Also, it just looks better, and that matters, because I spend a lot of time in terminal windows. I haven't been a Gnome user for many years though... Exactly for reasons like this. They have removed a few features too many. IIRC, last time I tried to log in with a Gnome session to see if anything had improved, I couldn't turn off cursor blinking in the terminal. I've been using Linux since way before Gnome existed, and it does piss me off that (from the perspective of a power user) it's less usable now after all those years than it was in the first few years of its existence. Gnome turned on its own users long ago, and I think the year of the Linux desktop might be further now than ever, especially for the Gnome project in its current form. It's an illusion to attract new users if even the old ones don't want to use it anymore. I wish the Gnome project good luck, but they are clearly sailing a different sea.