3 ms·
Good points though I can't see why anyone would pay to pay solitaire in any form but for those who want to I'm fine with it. Canonical didn't make Unity to inn
by jebblue 11y ago
Good points though I can't see why anyone would pay to pay solitaire in any form but for those who want to I'm fine with it.
Canonical didn't make Unity to innovate for the user as much as they did to have a unified interface that could run more easily on phones and tablets operating on the same concept as Windows 10. Whether people want that, time will tell though it was innovative thinking even though Unity is still a bad experience for experienced users, we can't even right click a Launcher icon and edit its properties. That's pretty stupid.
- slgeorge 11y ago"Canonical didn't make Unity to innovate for the user as much as it did to have a unified interface that could run [across all platforms". Sorry, but simplifying and clarifying the interface for users absolutely is a goal for unity: "innovation for the user". All the user-testing showed that general users (ie non-developers-or-techies) found many aspects of the Linux user-experience too complex. So a lot of time was spent simplifying all sorts of aspects of Ubuntu so that it could be used by more general users. I know because I saw user-interface report after report. Furthermore, having a single user-experience across your different classes is trying to be user-centric. It's true that since there were three code-bases 'unifying' to one base was a key goal at an engineering level. That doesn't deny your point that Unity is less suited to users who prefer the traditional Linux window manager experience e.g focus-follow-mouse.