3 ms·

They're not "stupid" and "piss-poor". Linear desktops are a huge usability win for a multitude of reasons: * It's spatially an easier mental model. * This men

by bluthru 13y ago

They're not "stupid" and "piss-poor". Linear desktops are a huge usability win for a multitude of reasons: * It's spatially an easier mental model. * This mental model is consistent with iOS multitasking and iOS home screen. * It allows for simple gestures to switch between desktops. * In western society, we read from left to right. New is to the right. Fullscreen a new desktops are added to the right. * This also sets up a linear "Forward/back" model similar to web pages. * You can easily add ONE desktop on the fly. No need to make it a grid for no reason. * The biggest reason: Spaces and expose are unified into Mission Control. One action to see EVERYTHING. This is a huge plus, as people don't have to check two different locations for a window. A grid of desktops wouldn't fit up above in mission control. * There's nothing below the dock and there's nothing above the menubar. Simple mental model. Regarding "maximize for windows": * It's a "fit window to content" button. A window shouldn't take up more space than is necessary in a multi-tasking environment. Regardless, there is a fullscreen mode and windows also remember their position and dimensions if you drag them.

baddox 13y ago
> * It's spatially an easier mental model. This is the only point that really matters, and I think it's false. A square grid is a far easier mental model for me. Remembering if something else is above|below|to the left|to the right of where I am is way easier to remember and visualize than how many slots to the right or left something is.
- buo 13y ago
  I have four virtual desktops mapped to WinKey+{a,s,z,x}. I've used this scheme for so long that the keys are hardwired in my brain and I can switch desktops without even thinking about it. In particular, I don't care if the window manager organizes the desktops in a matrix or linearly, since I don't need a visual representation. As an aside, my biggest gripe with Ubuntu is that they hard code the Win key to something else, which breaks my desktop switching habits.
  - VeejayRampay 13y ago
    That's actually pretty cool. I'll use some variation of that using hjkl :)
  - kazoolist 13y ago
    +1 for Virtual Desktops and key mappings for each. I do 3x3, mapped to <ctr>+<alt>+[1-9] on the keypad.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Fair enough. It sounds like you use a more specific named mental model, rather than a visual one. When I used a 2x2 virtual desktop grid (I don't use virtual desktops at all anymore), I has loosely defined roles for each desktop, but it was fairly dynamic. I used the visual model, as in "Where did I throw that terminal window? I think it's right below me."
VeejayRampay 13y ago
About all those nice bullet points: That's cool, but I'd like to be able to use a grid layout. I'm not looking for an argument or a lesson about the awesomeness of the Apple Way™. I just see people trying to accomodate their 9 Spaces and moving tediously from 9 to 1 and back, while pondering the "huge usability win" that is the linear desktop layout and that's when it hits me: "It'd be nice to have the option of using a grid layout, Linux has that, it's pretty nice". Then I mention maximize and you tell me "it's not maximize, it's fit to content". Then again, that's all nice and dandy but if I wanted "fit to content" I guess I'd be already be satisfied and I wouldn't be complaining about it now, would I? Same for fullscreen, I'm sure you actually do understand the difference between maximize and fullscreen. I don't want fullscreen, I want maximize, a feature Mac OS X does not offer (except for a few apps like Terminal.app, which makes it not only an idiotic choice, but also inconsistent across the OS).
- bluthru 13y ago
  If you're evaluating an Apple product based on how many options it gives you, or how it might bend to your individual desire, you're gonna have a bad time. Apple is opinionated, and there are usability benefits to be gained from that. Mission control would not work with a grid.
- JasonFruit 13y ago
  That's exactly why I haven't been able to bring myself to buy nice Apple hardware: there are too many things where I say, "I want it," and the answer is "You shouldn't." With my LXDE desktop, I can make it act however I want, and I'm pleased and productive, even though I shouldn't be.

by bluthru 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

> * It's spatially an easier mental model. This is the only point that really matters, and I think it's false. A square grid is a far easier mental model for me. Remembering if something else is above|below|to the left|to the right of where I am is way easier to remember and visualize than how many slots to the right or left something is.

buo 13y ago
I have four virtual desktops mapped to WinKey+{a,s,z,x}. I've used this scheme for so long that the keys are hardwired in my brain and I can switch desktops without even thinking about it. In particular, I don't care if the window manager organizes the desktops in a matrix or linearly, since I don't need a visual representation. As an aside, my biggest gripe with Ubuntu is that they hard code the Win key to something else, which breaks my desktop switching habits.
- VeejayRampay 13y ago
  That's actually pretty cool. I'll use some variation of that using hjkl :)
- kazoolist 13y ago
  +1 for Virtual Desktops and key mappings for each. I do 3x3, mapped to <ctr>+<alt>+[1-9] on the keypad.
- baddox 13y ago
  Fair enough. It sounds like you use a more specific named mental model, rather than a visual one. When I used a 2x2 virtual desktop grid (I don't use virtual desktops at all anymore), I has loosely defined roles for each desktop, but it was fairly dynamic. I used the visual model, as in "Where did I throw that terminal window? I think it's right below me."

VeejayRampay 13y ago

About all those nice bullet points: That's cool, but I'd like to be able to use a grid layout. I'm not looking for an argument or a lesson about the awesomeness of the Apple Way™. I just see people trying to accomodate their 9 Spaces and moving tediously from 9 to 1 and back, while pondering the "huge usability win" that is the linear desktop layout and that's when it hits me: "It'd be nice to have the option of using a grid layout, Linux has that, it's pretty nice". Then I mention maximize and you tell me "it's not maximize, it's fit to content". Then again, that's all nice and dandy but if I wanted "fit to content" I guess I'd be already be satisfied and I wouldn't be complaining about it now, would I? Same for fullscreen, I'm sure you actually do understand the difference between maximize and fullscreen. I don't want fullscreen, I want maximize, a feature Mac OS X does not offer (except for a few apps like Terminal.app, which makes it not only an idiotic choice, but also inconsistent across the OS).

bluthru 13y ago
If you're evaluating an Apple product based on how many options it gives you, or how it might bend to your individual desire, you're gonna have a bad time. Apple is opinionated, and there are usability benefits to be gained from that. Mission control would not work with a grid.
JasonFruit 13y ago
That's exactly why I haven't been able to bring myself to buy nice Apple hardware: there are too many things where I say, "I want it," and the answer is "You shouldn't." With my LXDE desktop, I can make it act however I want, and I'm pleased and productive, even though I shouldn't be.