On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 08:50 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > > For expose, I'm sorry that you don't like, but before we remove the > > feature or make it optional, we need to understand why you feel it is > > wrong. > > The problem with expose is that it moves your windows around and resizes > them, many times unnecessarily. > > When one uses workspaces, it is often not required to have windows that > overlap each other. In other words, one sets the windows on each worspace > so that they are fully visible. That's the point of having workspaces - you > get much more screen real estate. The eye and the brain "remember" the size > and the position of windows.
I'm somewhat worried by the seemingly exclusive focus of Shell design on a workspace-based method of window organization. I don't use them, and really don't find any advantage in using them. I set up my laptop with workspaces based on the two monitors I use on my desktop, and really tried to like it, just to try and drink the kool-aid for Shell; I didn't feel that it gave me any discernible advantage at all, and I felt two or three small disadvantages. I never once found myself 'naturally' switching between workspaces, as I do find myself 'naturally' using new UI elements I find really useful (like the sidebar in old Shell, or the application run dialog in the overview of any Shell). I just carried on switching between applications, and when one app happened to be on a different workspace, I saw a 'workspace shift' animation. No, I have no data, but I rather suspect a lot of users don't actually open enough windows at once - and, particularly, enough *small* windows which you can sensibly arrange in non-overlapping fashion on a typical monitor - to benefit from workspaces, much less the ridiculous numbers of workspaces lately being discussed on this list. A typical work session of mine has only two windows - a terminal and my password manager - which I could really usefully organize as an individual workspace; obviously, a password manager and a console ain't a useful work area. All my other windows are full-screen or close to it. Are we really expecting everyone to voluntarily migrate to a new method of working, whose benefits are probably small and likely obscure to them? History suggests this is not likely to happen. Am I missing some vital principle of a workspace-based system which would enable me to take some advantage from it (what)? If so, I like to flatter myself that I'm a vaguely savvy and informed user; do we expect others won't have this problem? Or do we expect that my use case is sufficiently odd that I'm not a useful test subject and most people really will have such a set of windows as will be conducive to a workspace-based system? Are there plans to somehow expose the greatness of workspaces to users to mitigate it? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
