Re: [Usability]Galeon 2 usability

> You know that I want to hack on something that I can use and like (as
> Havoc says: this is the only sensible thing, otherwise I won't have any
> motivation). 
> 
> I don't thing that both things are totally incompatible. So far we have
> been able to agree after some flamage.

I fully agree with havoc about these things being incompatible. All
these flames shows it very well.

> 
> > 
> > > If you go the "we want a good UI for 98% of typical, nontechnical
> > > users" route, like metacity or Phoenix, then you have to hide most of
> > > the silly stuff and technical terms by default.
> > > 
> 
> this is offtopic, but metacity is still unusable for me. I have tried to
> switch two times, but I can't. The damm thing wants to force me a
> different way to work with windows. I used previously fvwm2 and sawfish
> and both allowed me to work in my way. I guess I'm doomed to use sawfish
> until it is totally unmantained and write my own wm afterwards.
> 
> Metacity/libwnck source code is great anyway, I hope to be able to use
> it for writing my own in the future ;)
> 
> > > You can try "user levels" (maybe just two: "sane browser" and
> > > "complicated browser"), but it's a lot of extra work, and if the
> > > master-user-level toggle button is in the visible UI, kind of
> > > confusing.
> > > 
> > > A better approach might be some kind of generic extension system. I
> > > think that's what Phoenix is doing, and that's how Emacs stays
> > > sort-of-sane. So people could load their own module that adds a
> > > Settings menu or whatever.
> > 
> We don't want to rewrite mozilla, yet.

Sorry ? I dont think mozilla has a plugin system. Phoenix does.

> > > The danger there is that you spend all your time overengineering the
> > > extension system, or in "complicated mode," and no time implementing
> > > the good browser.
> > > 
> > > If you're focusing on a general-purpose browser, my opinion as you
> > > know is that the best thing is to design primarily for the 98% case,
> > > and then add the most useful/important technical/complicated features,
> > > keeping them relatively unobtrusive.
> > > For example, "geek features" in metacity include sloppy focus,
> > > autoraise, lower-window-on-middle-click, Alt+click, rearranging button
> > > layout, configurable keybindings. The list of such features that
> > > _aren't_ included is much much longer, but many people are covered by
> > > what's there. Metacity is also partly extensible, e.g. Ross Burton has
> > > implemented matched windows and position remembering and
> > > keep-panel-on-bottom all in an external add-on. Anyway, the idea is to
> > > avoid including the complicated features that have high maintenance/UI
> > > cost or that have only minor benefits.
> > 
> > Yeah I think it make sense to keep a small number of thecnical features
> > as long as they are unobtrusive. Metacity have a very good approach 
> > to the problem IHMO.
> 
> It's not about features. We all agree (more or less) about what features
> we want. It's about how to arrange those features in the UI and what
> fetures we want to be easily accesible.

Not really. It's all about features. I believe galeon should not provide
web developers features. I believe galeon should not provide technical
features by design (see js toggle) but I can leave if they are there in
a not obtrusive way (prefs dialog).
Now do you agree with what I'm saying ?

> > 
> > > gnome-terminal is much more of a compromise; it's loaded up with geeky
> > > features and not so good for general users. The idea being that
> > > terminal users are relatively into computers. But I'm not that happy
> > > with gnome-terminal, it's too complex for general users, and not as
> > > featureful as multi-gnome-terminal and other alternatives for users
> > > who love complexity.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, it's a hard choice. You just have to decide up front what your
> > > goals are, and then stick to them. If people don't like your goals,
> > > they can write their own browser, even using your code to do it. Or
> > > use another browser. Let them. You are not obligated to make everyone
> > > happy, because making everyone happy isn't even possible.
> > > 
> > > Have a vision - design by committee is no good.
> > > 
> > > Personally I would do what you want to use yourself. If you want to
> > > use the highly configurable geeky browser, then write that. Trying to
> > > write something else will just strip all your motivation.
> > 
> 
> Fully agree.
> 
> 
> > Here we come at the real problems. While I dont use any geeky feature
> > galeon 1 had, Ricardo, Philip and Yaneti have strong feelings about
> > keeping them mainly because they use them.
> > So I dont see much hope to be able to agree on a common direction :(
> > We MUST deal with it though and now. We are not in a hurry, but we cant
> > delay this anymore.
> > 
> > My plan is to write, in the next few days, a short document about the
> > lines galeon user interface development should follow (I'm not going to
> > rewrite the HIG dont worry ;))
> > 
> > The main points are going to be:
> > - HIG compliance
> > - Simple design
> > - Strong GNOME integration
> > - Geeky, thecnical feature keep at minimum and anyway never obtrusive
> 
> You definition of obtrusive is not the same as mine and mine is
> different of some other person. If we agreed on that we won't have these
> problems ;)
> 

Man now dont come saying shortcuts to geeky features put in the menubar
are not obtrusive !
What is obtrusive for you ? A dialog coming up every three seconds about
disabling js ???

Marco




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf