Leo Hauptmann wrote: > KDE is very nice and packed with a lot of functionality that I like > using. For some reason I always after a while have found myself using > Gnome again. > Hi, perhaps we can find what "some reason" is and you'll stay a while.
> Gnome and KDE have got very different UI approaches. KDE has got this > OMGWTF-POWAH thing that has got its own appeal. Gnome is the aesthetic > GUI and workflow nazi land. When a "power addict" or an "engineer minded > user" steps into Gnome land he doesn't like it. In some case we will be > reading from the newspapers about it ;-) > Absolutely NFI WTF a POWAH thing is, or what on earth you mean by "some case we will be reading from the newspapers". sorry. > When someone who likes > minimalistic approach that does the 80 part of the 80-20 thingy > consistently comes to KDE land.. Well, he stays for a while and often is > back using Gnome after a while. > Actually, someone doing the "minimalistic" approach will be doing the 20 part of the 80-20 thingy... and will always get it wrong. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/printerFriendly/articles/fog0000000020.html > That was just my way of putting it and for a reason: I might be naive > but I don't see why both wouldn't be reached simultaenously. Why can't > many GUIs have both "simple" and "advanced" mode and so on? Take the > Konqueror ( 3.x version) for instance. > The key 'holy grail' interface is to make a clean simple interface that is accessible, but can be drilled into or interrogated to access advanced features. A user/advanced mode flip is a cop-out and a poor solution. similarly stripping the interface away to it's bare metal and forcing users to set configuration settings in some form of separate "advanced settings" editor is also a poor solution. > I launch it up. By default it's like stepping into the cockpit of a > space shuttle. There's stuff on left, stuff on right, panes, buttons, > menus and so on. You can customize and tweak it until the end of the > world. The problem is I don't want to customize some 10+ applications > when they could be nice for me from the very beginning. And they are on > the other side of the fence. If the default was the minimalistic one the > other people would be pissed off. > Perhaps you have different defaults in your distro? or have you turned lots of stuff on by default. I launch konqueror and I get a simple window with no clutter and a blue pane in the centre offering a small set of choices. Similarly in file browser mode I have a plain window showing my folder contents and then a very small space taken up around the edge showing a status bar and a strip on the left of all the funky features I've installed that I need to open up and expand out to access. On the whole even on a small screen very little screen space appears to be wasted. Perhaps I don't need quite so many icons, but they're pretty and everyone loves pretty icons. > What I like is having the title bar (that comes from the window > manager), Naturally. > no menus at all (!), > ? ok, you may be in a minority here. How do you "find" what options are available whilst browsing the app... or take actions quickly with a keyboard? > no panes, no status bar at the bottom (!) > So where do you display current context information or current status? > (!), just one address field and next to it grouped 1-5 the most used > buttons. And the main information area of the file system having big > friendly icons. Woohoo. Let's see, have I been able to remove the menu > bar? I can't remember. Hopefully. Could I still get the occasional POWAH > I wanted? Yeah, hopefully, clicking at some area and something perhaps? > Ah I see are you saying this is how you would like your apps configured, as opposed to this is how apps should run in a simple mode for most users. > Anyways.. What if I had sort of master switch between the shuttle > cockpit and the nice version? What if the applications (all of them of > the base ones) could by default adapt automatically? > Because all apps have different requirements for simple, and all users have different ideas for what "simple settings are". If apps are designed/developed in such a way that advanced settings need to be drilled into, then there's no need for such a mode switch. > I have been also back in Gnome land because it's easier to get really > good looking. > Is the problem for you that it's not possible to make KDE look like Gnome? "good looking" is certainly a pretty subjective opinion. >In the end some parts of the KDE applications such as the > main bar has been really bad. Try to make it transparent? Okay. Add the > window list? Handles? Argh. Ugly. > Sorry, but what is anyone supposed to do to address issues simply described as "the main bar is really bad", "handles? Argh. ugly". > Often some silly widget part or > similar has just simply refused from co-operating. Argh. > Can't say I've noticed any specific widget that doesn't cooperate. If it does then it needs fixing. > And is it important? To get AWESOME looking GUIs? Some people say "I > prefer functionality". Well, I prefer getting both functionality AND > looks. It has been usually easier available on the other side of the > fence, thank you. > It's perfectly possible to achieve both. However IMHO the Gnome approach to removing/hiding features is also broken. > What have you Appeal people in your minds actually for KDE4? I'm just > wondering.. > It's going to be perfect, beautiful, a combined user interface/ work of art. Or something. -- Ivor http://www.ivor.it _______________________________________________ Appeal mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/appeal
