faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
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. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
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 ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
