The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Ian Monroe on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @08:09
|
Well you say which one is best isn't the point but it kind of is. We Amarok devs like ours the best, but others have a phobia of all that vertical text.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Leo S on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @08:13
|
>> -Konqueror got the old one. Tiny tabs and icons, the selected tab is expanded and shows icon+vertical text, so the tabs constantly jump up and down if you switch between them.
Yeah the icons are too small to distinguish and hit
>> Amarok got its modification of that one. All tabs have icon+vertical text. (Imho that's the best solution but that's not really my point)
Except it doesn't work at all when you have more tabs than fit vertically. Why do you think konqueror went to icons.
>> Ocular has an Opera-style bar. But unlike Opera's its icon bar with horizontal text isn't collapsible and (like Opera) you can't adjust its width. (It's a collossal waste of space, and a POS -- but that is also beside the point)
Works for me. When I'm viewing a PDF I have a lot of unused horizontal space anyway, and the buttons are easy to click and easy to read.
>> Do we really need four different solutions?
Probably not.
>> It's not even as if they were all specialized for their specific use case.
Perhaps not, but they all have unique advantages and disadvantages, and none of them are clearly superior and suitable for a default.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Ian Monroe on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @08:33
|
Can't really say that Konqueror went to icons, Konqueror's sidebar predates Amarok's.
But yea, your last sentence pretty much sums up the issue.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by ac on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @08:54
|
>> Except it doesn't work at all when you have more tabs than fit vertically.
Fade out part of the text, group some tabs together, have a "list all tabs" button for those that don't fit, that's not a deal breaker.
And Konqueror is probably the most extreme case when talking about sidebars.
>> Works for me. When I'm viewing a PDF I have a lot of unused horizontal space anyway, and the buttons are easy to click and easy to read.
If there's one of the tabs expanded it gets awfully wide, especially if the document is landscape.
>> Perhaps not, but they all have unique advantages and disadvantages, and none of them are clearly superior and suitable for a default.
Exactly. As I said I don't really like the Okular solution, but having everything use Okular's sidebar (preferrably collapsible like Opera) would still be superior to doing it in four different ways.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by kwilliam on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @08:53
|
You know... you have a point. That sucks.
I wonder what we could do about it? Konqueror, Amarok, and Ocular could conceivably just use the Amarok style sidebar tabs.
The difference with Dolphin's is that it's using Qt panels, which can be placed so more than one shows at a time (unlike a sidebar) and that "tabbing" feature is built in. Dolphin's panels are really shooting for a different paradigm than a "sidebar" because you can put them on either side or even the bottom. Kpdf used an entirely different widget - it's supposed to be more of a "toolbox" widget - and I must agree it was a... interesting choice. Other than Qt designer, which uses the widget in a way that makes much more sense, I can't think of any applications that use it. (Kpdf was deprecated by Ocular for KDE 4.0.)
So, yes, we should see if we can get the KDE Human Interface Guidlines (HIG) group to pick a standard "sidebar" widget, or suggest the specs for a new sidebar widget that would combine the advantages of Okular's, Konqueror's, and Amarok's sidebars. I'm not sure who to contact about that (nor do I see this as a pressing matter), but this would be an excellent example for HIG to work on.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by kwilliam on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @09:00
|
Ah, I just saw the comments regarding the disadvantages of Amarok-style tabs. Well, maybe some kind of sidebar that does icons & text if there is enough room, and automatically switches to just icons if it senses theres not enough room? And you can drag the left edge to make it wider, at which point it becomes Okular style. That would solve all the usability problems, no? (It could be wide by default in Okular, but anoyed users could make it Amarok/Konqueror style by trying to resize it intuitively, by grabbing the edge and dragging.)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by kwilliam on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @09:28
|
"Other than Qt designer, which uses the widget in a way that makes much more sense, I can't think of any applications that use [Kpdf-style sidebar]."
Ah, I take that back. Marble uses it. The plot thickens.... ;-)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Aaron J. Seigo on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @11:37
|
"even if it would have reduced the devs workload"
well, that's unfortunately not particularly true. nor is the fact that there are these different sidebars a given that therefore usability is significantly weakened. i'd like to see the sidebars be consistent (and btw, a lot of things have been made consistent in kde, so your general snipe here is off the mark), the question is "how".
i don't think we'll get away with One True Sidebar Style for fairly obvious reasons once you sit down and look at the needs and use cases of each. i do think we can probably end up collapsing the current sidebar options down to just 2 or 3 though: the amarok/konq style, the tool docks (what dolphin uses) and perhaps a toolbox style ala kpdf/marble. but you see, that gets us pretty much right to where we are, though each style could be shared and at the very least made consistent between those use cases (e.g. konq should either look more like amarok, or should go in one of the other directions0. unfortunately, one style does not fit the needs or ergonomics of each app.
so while i agree that similar sidebar styles should be harmonized, asking for One True Sidebar style is probably not even a desirable end goal. trying to make the case that that would be best for usability is also far fetched.
and since you've given us some feedback, i'd like to give you some as well: you ought to learn how to communicate in a way that encourages thought without resorting to invective and insult. you had some interesting points, but they were completely drowned out by your communication style, or lack thereof.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Leiteiro on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @12:45
|
What about allowing more than one GUI per application without resorting to a complete fork?
I made a small suggestion about this some time ago in kde-look:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php/Scriptable+Application+UI?content=71313
In the future with more fancier GUIs (3d effects on everything, etc) it's inevitable to annoy some users, so this could allow someone to try something different without alienating old users.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by susegebr on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @13:27
|
Use kde from Suse 6.0
Followed the new releases always
Never seen so much resistance to the changes
As i stated elsewhere there are no specs for the kde developpers
each and every one can come up with "whe do it this way"
There is no organisation in the development.
So if this dus not change for the better i think kde 3.5.8 31.1 is the
last real kde release sofar and all the talk off kde4 results after many month
in what we now see. A very unsuefull version off....... but sure no KDE.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by mat69 on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @14:56
|
I think you miss the point, no matter how long you use KDE or not, even though it is nice to see an old time user.
Where do you see resistance?
Imagine I'd say to a chef in a restaurant that his food sucks he should change that. First you pissed him off, second you gave no feedback on what did not taste you (!) well and third the chances things will get changed the way you want are pretty small because of first.
Maybe devs are pissed of such kind of "feedback", I hardly beleive they are not open to a discussion but well they, you and me are human beings so respect that.
It boils down to "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way" [0] or simply how to treat the people you are talking to with respect.
That will make everything easier for you and them. A win-win situation. Really!
On "specs":
You have the old guidelines for KDE 3 and the new ones are a work in process. To quote: "New interface guidelines are being developed in parallel with KDE4." [1]
You are free to post your ideas on the HIG mailgroup. There you could also see the process there may be instead of assuming there is none.
Additonally you could visit techbase [2] as a starting point on developement or the API documentation [3] if you want to see a proof of people not doing everything their way.
Maybe, just maybe, you see or feel to see only a small part of the whole picture and assume the rest looks like that small part. So what you see probably is not the whole picture and not even the base of that picture.
The base could consist of changed colours, canvas ... -- basically a changed underlying technology -- that could result in a better outcome, like "new" colours that were not available/unaffordable a long time for painting really did.
And for seeing the difference in the underlying technology you have to start painting, i.e. creating programs in this context. In fact you have to "know" the new colors first, where the documentation comes into play.
I hope my reply is not too confusing -- that happens sometimes.
[0] http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
[1] http://usability.kde.org/hig/
[2] http://techbase.kde.org/
[3] http://api.kde.org/
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Anon on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @15:18
|
"You are free to post your ideas on the HIG mailgroup. There you could also see the process there may be instead of assuming there is none."
There have been no posts to that mailing list in well over a *year*:
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-guidelines&r=1&w=2
kde-usability is hardly a hotbed of discussion and productivity, either. KDE has simply failed, over its 11-year lifespan, to develop a large/ active usability/ HIG-team, which is a huge shame as it has all the technical underpinnings down pat.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by mat69 on Friday 04/Jan/2008, @02:51
|
Well you are right, I had no time to check that myself yesterday -- did not wanted to write such a long answer in the first place -- that is why I wrote "may".
That's a pity. I hope that KDE will have more progress in that area someday.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by susegebr on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @18:20
|
point taken but i take nothing back
see http://www.kde-forum.org/artikel/17965/KDE4---the-great-disappointment.html
and further on and you hopefully see what i mean.
We want a normale kikcker menu. 3.5.8 style and for me KDE menu style.
if the underlaying software is Kwin or plasma it should work the Same
I have a Soundblaster live 5.1 see KMIX in kde 3.5.8 en see KMIX in kde4 it misses nearly half the possible sliders.
Xine has delayed sound playing a dvd no arts no normal sound
and the list go's on read the forums !!!!!!!!!!!!
Where are the design specifications, in a normal project you have them first
before programming starts. and design specs have to be followed to the letter.
You cant build a car and come up with the idea 3 4 or 6 wheels when the body is nearly ready.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by mat69 on Friday 04/Jan/2008, @02:42
|
You can have a "normal" kicker-like menu. Go on read the dev's blogs!!!! ;)
No design specs don't have to be followed to the letter. That's unrealistic as sometimes you'll come up with problems those specs hardly can "solve", meaning the initial design specs have to be modified to a degree.
Also new technology like a newer Qt version could result in a modified spec.
On kcontrol that was mentioned in that forum-thread: If there is so much (dev) interest in it won't disappear as Aaron said in his latest interview, but so far there is not much interest by people capable of maintaining it. In contrast to the old menu that found a maintainer.
Also config options or lack thereof of taskbar etc. were mentioned. As Aaron said some time ago he plans to add them. Adding config options is like polishing, you do that rather at the end than at the beginning before you actually have something that could be configured. Yet I have to admit that I like the Gnome system settings more than the KDE one. Now hurt me. :D
Kicker button can be activated by moving the mouse to the lower left now.
On why they don't use compiz fusion but rather KWin also listen to the latest interview or read some blogs. In short it's easier that way.
IIRC the weather applet has been discussed in a recent blog post. In fact does the author plan to add icons he simply ran out of time.
Btw. a lot was "broken" in the old code base what I read so far, meaning it would have been hard to extend a lot of it. So hard to some degree that it would be faster and easier to start from scratch.
So some of the points raised in that thread are wrong and even I without being a dev was able to show that to a degree.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Anon on Friday 04/Jan/2008, @02:49
|
"On why they don't use compiz fusion but rather KWin also listen to the latest interview or read some blogs. In short it's easier that way."
Here's a comment giving hard numbers and stats:
http://dot.kde.org/1180541665/1180560211/1180560581/1180578526/1180594617/
In a nutshell - writing a real, production-ready Window Manager is hard. Writing code to move textures around is easy.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by susegebr on Friday 04/Jan/2008, @16:56
|
Ok Bottom line kde4 is not finished.
Google for kde3 + compiz vs kde4 gives 33.300 hits
sort it out and you have more or less 12.000 pure kde3 vs kde4 hits.
I should say time to start a site only stating at what state kde4 and the kde4 programs + applets etc etc are so we can see in one page if it is usefull to switch to kde4 from a good running system opensuse 10.3 retail +kde3 + compiz
Btw I have been a dev for 25 years on large mainframes, the last 10 years in project management.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by mat69 on Friday 04/Jan/2008, @18:43
|
Well none said KDE 4 is finished.
KDE 4 won't be finished for a long time.
The only thing that is "finished" is KDE 4.0 an initial release that even devs dub as not intended for most people out there as a lot improvements as well as old features are missing that are going to be add in later versions.
Maybe what you are asking for will be mentioned in the release notes.
Btw. it should be clear that neither alphas, betas nor RCs are intended for the general public per se. The same goes for a release.
The 4.0 release is for early adopters, people that want to develop apps for KDE and the people that like to bitch about unfinished products.
Imo you should not switch from a good running system to KDE 4.0, that could result in a disappointment. Wait for reviews of KDE 4.X versions and if you think it actually offers value for you then switch. Or you could try a Live CD.
The same rule goes for other software as well, like the Kernel. 2.6.0 was not that useable at all, while the latest version is.
You have to start somewhere.
If you found the time you could probably help a lot with your experience.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by susegebr on Monday 07/Jan/2008, @08:49
|
Tell me how to help and give a idea off the time involved
anwser me on email
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by jospoortvliet on Saturday 05/Jan/2008, @01:58
|
I want to what Mat said above - there will be aq KDE 3.5.9 release soon (as soon as we've recovered from the stress caused by KDE 4.0). And yes, that release will have new features. We won't abandon KDE 3.5.x anytime soon - it will probably be supported for years still. Part of that is because KDE 4.0 simply can't replace 3.5 fully - yet. And I think it'll take to 4.2 before we have practically every feature from 3.5 back, so we need to actively support it for at least a year - and then some, as many users won't switch for another 2 or 3 years.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by ac on Thursday 03/Jan/2008, @16:32
|
>> well, that's unfortunately not particularly true.
So what you're saying is that Okular doing there own sidebar wasn't any more work than just using Amaroks? Sorry, I don't believe you, I think that's marketing-Aaron talking :)
>> nor is the fact that there are these different sidebars a given that therefore usability is significantly weakened.
Probably not significantly. But the one thing I hate the most about Vista usability is that stuff's all over the place. And I'm not the only one who thinks that. It won't make or break a GUI but I don't think there's a compelling reason to have all these different solutions because the needs of the different apps are mostly the same.
>> the amarok/konq style, the tool docks (what dolphin uses) and perhaps a toolbox style ala kpdf/marble
I think one of the advantages of Opera's sidebar would be that it could easily replace the first and the third.
How about icon-only, but when you hover over the side-sidebar (i.e. the selector) labels for all icons fade-in. ( http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sidebardn9.jpg -- Frankenstein's version. Use your imagination for a cool oxygenized look with bells and whistles)
That would be
a) slim
b) provide icons+text
c) no vertical text
d) lots of space for many entries
Disadvantages and possible solutions:
a) the labels can't be clickable otherwise actually using the sidebar (as opposed to the sidesidebar) becomes a chore
b) even this way you'd probably want a slight delay and relatively slow fade-in to prevent a constant flicker of the labels appearing and disappearing again
c) small target area for the mouse, although Fitt's law helps in some cases; it'd probably be a good idea to use a size somewhere between Opera's and Konqueror's icons
d) you'd have to use graphical effects to make clear to even the most imbecile of users that the labels are just labels for the icons on the left and not clickable buttons
Dolphin's tool dock. Well, at least Dolphin doesn't really need it. The only use case I can think of is a combined Places/Meta sidebar (because the dirtree is pointless if you have to scroll all the time you generally don't want it to share vertical space with one of the others. Vista did it and it's just unusable) but is that really that important?
>> so while i agree that similar sidebar styles should be harmonized, asking for One True Sidebar style is probably not even a desirable end goal. trying to make the case that that would be best for usability is also far fetched.
Maybe not 1, but 2 should be enough. What's the big difference in usage between your first and third? I can see how the second one is optimized for a different task, although I can't think of any existing app where I'd actually need/want it (I think I'd prefer a Konqueror style sidebar in Dolphin. In things like Krita where stacking toolboxes vertically could be useful, the awkward tabs limit its usefulness, imho, because it's not really optimized for more than perhaps three boxes down one side)
>> and since you've given us some feedback, i'd like to give you some as well: you ought to learn how to communicate in a way that encourages thought without resorting to invective and insult. you had some interesting points, but they were completely drowned out by your communication style, or lack thereof.
It's the first rule of Linux online tech-support but it also applies to feedback in my experience:
Post a friendly request for help, state your problem clearly and concisely and list all information that could be useful in solving your issue and you'll be lucky if someone hurls a "RTFM!" in your general direction.
Bitch and complain about how Linux is unusable and <competing DE> is much better and the POS doesn't work because <your problem here> and you're gonna be insulted and derided but they'll prove your inferiority by posting 4 different perfectly working solutions to your problem.
In this case:
>> you ought to learn how to communicate in a way that encourages thought
It apparently did work.
>> without resorting to invective and insult.
The worst part of my post was that I called the current state of things "stupid". I didn't even call the people that did it stupid and the second one doesn't follow from the first (the way to hell is paved with good intentions).
My tone was confrontational but not insulting.
>> but they were completely drowned out by your communication style, or lack thereof.
It didn't keep you from posting a detailed reply, so I challenge your assertion
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Joe on Saturday 05/Jan/2008, @18:21
|
"Invective". Great word, AS.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Grósz Dániel on Friday 04/Jan/2008, @06:57
|
I have filed a wishlist item in May about similar issues with MDI and also sidebar system: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145275 :
Currently handling multiple documents/tabs and sidebars work differently in Kate, Kile, Quanta+, KDevelop, KOffice (which actually can't handle more than one documents in one window) and Konqueror.
- Konqueror has tabbing. It is acceptable, although some improvements could be made (e. g. dragging a tab without pressing Ctrl should move it instead of copying it). It features a New tab and a Close tab button. The tabs also have a popup menu.
- Kile also has tabbing but somewhat differently: there is no New tab button (no problem, there is New document instead) and tabs can be closed with clicking on the icon after a delay, as there is no Close tab button on the right. Tabs do not have a popup menu.
- Kate also handles multiple documents at the same time, but in a quite useless way. It has a Documents sidebar instead of tabs, in which the documents are listed in a column, so it occupies much more place on the screen. (Especially if few documents are open.) It also has a Tab bar extention, but it can only do switching between documents - no popup menu, no Close button etc. and if you have more documents open than how many fits on the screen then it requires two clicks.
- KDevelop has a quite well configurable UI, and Quanta as well, but not the same system.
- KOffice components do not feature MDI at all, they use top level windows.
This means that if you configure the MDI/tabbing in one application, and get used to it, it may be completely different in an other app. And you have to suffer from useless MDI in some applications (e. g. Kate), while it is already implemented much better in other apps.
The same applies to sidebars: just try to open a Konsole inside Konqueror, Kate, Kile and Quanta and see the differencies.
I think all these applications should use a common MDI and/or sidebar system and it should be configurable in the Control Center.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by jospoortvliet on Saturday 05/Jan/2008, @02:20
|
I agree, this is one of the things we really need to work on in KDE... Esp Kate is imho a thing needing improvement, I don't use Kile but I guess the same goes for that one. KOffice has MDI in the KOffice Workspace, so you don't need it in the separate apps.
Konqi can move tabs, btw, with the middle-mouse. Much better than the normal mouse - as that would make dragging & dropping harder. Let's not dumb it down, please.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Kris on Saturday 05/Jan/2008, @04:34
|
I don't know, but I think that one of the reasons to why GNOME is so popular is that they have a guideline for how an application have to look and work.
It make it more consistent and make a better user-feeling (is that even a word? ;) )
I think that it would be great if the KDE-developers could make a guideline too, a desktop environment as large as KDE needs a consistent look. And I think that it was a goal for the KDE4 development, right? But lucky for us, is that the KDE4-development cyclus isn't over yet... Actually it's first started :)
Let's hope we get a more consistent look over time!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by csanchisb on Saturday 05/Jan/2008, @05:19
|
Why don't you take a look at Techbase (techbase.kde.org) ?
Specifically this: http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Guidelines
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by mat69 on Saturday 05/Jan/2008, @06:11
|
These guidelines are very old and or incomplete.
I think it is true KDE needs something like the Gnome HIG.
In fact a lot of the information in the Gnome HIG could be dubbed as "logical" and unnecessary but on the other hand a lot of questions that might arise are answered that way.
The Gnome HIG has the advantage that everything is concentrated in one place and still very clear.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by Grósz Dániel on Tuesday 11/Mar/2008, @10:32
|
We need no guidelines that are implemented (more or less) by the developers of every application, but shared code that is used by every application. That is the KDE way.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: We don't need no stinkin' consistency
by jospoortvliet on Saturday 05/Jan/2008, @01:50
|
I think you shouldn't really include konqueror here, it still has the old style sidebar - but I think that's mostly simply because there wasn't much work put into konqi's UI.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
