Hi, On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Peng Huang <[email protected]> wrote: > I am glade to hear you also think ibus is a good choice right now. And we > were discussing and working on IM integration with gnome community from > 2010. We really want to get some progress instead of waiting forever. >
I didn't mean anything that any IMF is bad, and IBus is particular outstanding as its initial design and further implementation are proofed by a large user base than Fcitx or any other (except SCIM, but it's out of scope here). Of course I know that people would like to see progress on doing something, but IMHO currently the result can be frustrating. > And I also think it is a good to integrate gnome desktop with an IMF as soon > as possible, because we can get user feedback and find some really problems > early. And then we could continue improving it. > As said in previous E-mail, this result is so theoretical. If other parts GNOME is willing to improve user experience of IMF, they should already be working on fixing bugs in GTK+, which are usually something that IMF cannot work around. Improving the appearance of input experience is something good, but IMHO we are on the wrong way. Also there is concern that users of other IMFs will be ignored, because "man power is limited". In the end, if another IMF expose a problem in some GNOME software, the users will be told to use IBus or go away. This result is extremely unfriendly and is probably going to make more users leave. IMF users are mainly CJK, and Chinese has a very large share. If GNOME want to keep those users, and corporations behind GNOME would like to see their products to be accepted by more CJK users, then GNOME will need to have a look at what leading input method providers do on other platforms to improve experience. Here are two sets of screenshots of Sougou Pinyin and QQ Pinyin on Windows. The user count of these two input method is larger than GNOME all over the world (just some rough calculation): https://live.gnome.org/InputCJK/Windows/Sougou https://live.gnome.org/InputCJK/Windows/QQ I agree some features present above are not needed, but the overall appearance is representing what's a modern input "experience". > And I also believe Fujiwarat's patches will not forbid using other IMFs with > gnome 3. We already considered it. Even if in future, GNOME 3 decides to > replace ibus with a new better IMF, it should not be difficult. And most > source code could be reused. And the new IMF could learn from the IM Gnome > integration as well. It could benefit both IM and Gnome communities. > I had a quick look at the code on git.gnome.org, which seems not written by fujiwara, it does not prevent the use of other IMF but when users use xkb and IMF together, they'll get a not working environment. Such breakage is cased by other GNOME developers' poor understanding of "how IMF works", and it's obvious they don't use IMF everyday so understandable. Weng has already started a conversation with Rui Matos to help him improve the status, but I haven't seen any new commits. > I don't think support multi-IMF at beginning is a good idea. It need much > efforts which can not be afforded right now. I think workable way is > integrating with one IMF at first, and may support multi-IMF in following > iterations. I think IM communities will contribute those efforts. > IMHO the reason we need such workload to _integrate_ IMF to GNOME is because there are technical design flaws in the project, which make developers and users have a hard time in the name of experience. > I hope Gnome could become more non-technical user-friendly, and Linux be > successful in Desktop area as well. > We are continuously moving forward, but never give users a "good enough" experience, one of the reasons is that we are continuously breaking existing efforts. -- Regards, Aron Xu _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
