Quick brainstorming (long)

[Eric Dunbar]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:55:49 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch <lists at lambda1.be> wrote:
> On di, 2004-12-07 at 17:52 +0100, Ramon Acedo wrote:

> > Remember that at every point I'm thinking about making John Smith's life
> > with Ubuntu easier.
> >
> > - Make Nautilus by default to navigate in the filesystem instead of
> >   opening a simple window in which when cliking on a folder opens
> >   another one and so on (that reminds the default behaviour of file
> >   exploring in W95). That's just activating an option in the view menu
> >   if my memory doesn't fail.
> 
> The whole spatial / non-spatial discussion has been very long (remember
> that before spatial, the browsing way was the only way). Pro/Con
> arguments can be found plenty in the gnome-desktop-devel archives

As a Mac user (where this was the default behaviour up until Mac OS X)
I have to admit that I never really enjoyed the spatial browsing
paradigm. It results in a very cluttered file managing experience.
However, for non-power users who keep their files on the desktop
(comment below ;) it is a better solution than showing the entire
hierarchy. The one thing that Mac OS X's Finder (piece of garbage
otherwise) actually does well is provide users with very easily
accessed & switched file browsing modes

A switch between "spatial" mode (where opening a folder opens a new
window)/non-spatial mode where opening folders opens up a new window
in place. How switched? A little widget on the title bar.

Three browsing "modes":
1. (for lack of a better term) preview hierarchy, files and folders
listed in one column, single click to "zoom" to a different level/file
(not my favourite for most things but has its advantages at times),
2. "classic" collapse/expand file/folder list (triangles to expand/collapse),
3. icon mode (with switch between open folders in place or in new window).

I use all three browsing modes roughly equally since they're so easily
switched. In Nautilus I only use two (just like in Windows and, as per
usual (does XP still do this?), Windows offers TOO much choice to be
USEFUL... four buttons/views (icon, small icon, icon list and list +
details)... only two views are really useful: 1. icon list and 2. list
+ details.

The extra buttons are clutter that distract from the utility of the
two really useful items (!@#$!%@#!#$ featuritis... Windows/DOS didn't
rise to the top because it was particularly good (it was popular long
before Windows NT 4.0/2000 came along) or well thought out, but
because Microsoft got Big Blue's contract and because it ran on cheap
(clone) hardware and businesses (where computing got its start) tend
to be lemmings and Big Blue was trusted).

> > - Include in Synaptics pre-configured filters to show packages in the
<snip>
> >   and flash stuff. The name of the filters could identificate this.
> 
> Good idea, like it

That was one of the first over-sights that struck me about Synaptic.

> > - Don't start so many services by default. A normal desktop user don't
> >   need postfix, atd and so on.

IIRC Postfix is needed by far too many *nix utilities to communicate
messages to the root -- Mac OS X, the most widely deployed desktop
*nix (perhaps simply the most widely deployed *nix) has Postfix turned
on by default even though Apple has no plans of ever providing home
users with the ability to turn on a mail server.

> > - Something for managing the services in the menu. rcconf or
> >   sysv-rc-conf would be enough although having some gnome app would
> >   always be better, Red Hat has something called "Services Configuration
> >   Tool". Porting it to Ubuntu (and to Debian) may not be an
> >   easy-to-implement task ;-) (at least not a 10 minutes job).
> 
> AFAIK, this is from Gnome System Tools and disabled upstream by the
> ubuntu devs. Services shouldn't be tweaked by the end user (well, the
> average user doesn't need it), those who do know what tweaking services
> is can do it command line.

Although not a GUI in the traditional sense, WebMin offers a
smorgasbord approach to managing services.

> > - Include some icons on the Desktop like Home, System, Network, Trash,
> >   etc.
> 
> Well, Ubuntu disables these by default, they're in the computer menu and
> I like em there. I don't want Windows cause I think the Ubuntu (GNOME)
> concept is better anyway. For people migrating, this could be handier,
> but (atleast my mum) most don't have any problem with no desktop icons
> when they get used to it.

This is a MAJOR problem in the design for Ubuntu IMNSHO. The reason I
say this is that an Ubuntu newbie (but experienced Mac or Windows
user) won't know where to start!

Clicking on an icon FROM THE DESKTOP or from a folder that can be
opened from the desktop is how most people start things. I work in a
Windows NT-only environment (10000s of people) and the overwhelming
number of people here are not power users (i.e. they couldn't
trouble-shoot themselves out of a locked file) and they start their
applications by double-clicking on icons. When I tell them to click on
Start menu to fire up an app that's not on their desktop they often
give me either a blank stare or a glare (because they either don't
know what the Start menu is and promptly forget after I show them, or
because they hate it).

The Mac OS X paradigm is slightly different since they've focussed on
the Dock but, even though it could be better, it works well in concert
with the desktop (because it's big enough and it's ONLY for apps, docs
or folders... no menus through which to navigate).

Icons on the desktop give people a place to start their file
management. Both Windows and Mac use that paradigm because it WORKS.
It's the first thing people see and it's what they're used to.

The desktop is what binds Windows and Mac users together. It's the
only place where users can expect the same behaviour, regardless of
OS, and, for most users I know the desktop is where they live. To _me_
it doesn't make sense but to them it does. They create their own
file-management hierarchies, all dependent on the desktop, and, if
you're not a geek like one us (i.e. you've lived and breathed
computers for years and years and...), you don't CARE about file
management.

Even I am a slave to the desktop -- active files are virtually always
stored on the desktop (under a sub-folder that changes name as often
as I get a spurt of energy to rearrange things), and they go to the
~/Documents folder to die an ignominious death.

I see why it's a better solution from a file management discipline POV
to keep files organised in a defined hierarchy (as Apple & WIndows
try), but, given that even Apple (often able to force unilateral
changes on its userbase (who, after a lot of grumbling, often
recognise that the change was for the better)) didn't pull off a
switch away from the desktop shows the power of "convention" (or the
utility of the desktop)

(I'm a staunch opponent of "just because that's the way it's always
been" but I do understand how sometimes "just because" IS a good
enough answer because the new way of doing things may not offer enough
advantages to justify abandoning the old way of doing things...
witness Microsoft WIndows in the late 80s/early 90s. An OS much
inferior to Apple's Mac OS at the time but because it offered _some_
GUI with compatibility with old DOS apps (& ran on cheaper hardware
than Mac OS) it was a resounding success).

One thought this rambling e-mail triggered in me...

In the past computer evolution has been driven by the power user, and
the needs and wants of the power user are at odds with the regular
user. DOS was a power-users dream. Mac OS was the antithesis to the
power user since the hardware was a closed shop (although, there was
so much more _USER_ customisability of software than on the DOS
side... I could modify applications with an app called Resedit even
though I had 0 programming knowledge). It was only when Microsoft came
along with WIndows 95 that the power-user started taking a back seat
to the user and computing took off in the non-Mac world. It seems like
there's the same struggle happening in Linux right now & hopefully
we'll see some good things coming out of the struggle between
competing interests :) :) :)

Drag-and-drop also needs to be supported better (of course, that's a
GNOME upstream issue).

One new point:

Menus should be STATIC. It drives me nuts that every-now-and-then an
app tries to dissociate itself from the launcher menus (i.e. you end
up dragging a little something around the screen and have to start
your whole navigation over again... to avoid this I've created aliases
to the most important apps on my desktop).

> > - Include autocomplete by default in /etc/bash.bashrc (OK, that's not
> >   for John Smith but it makes our life at the shell easier ;-)
> 
> +1 vote

+2 vote

Eric.