On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 19:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > This mail could perhaps do with more details. :)
The gist of it is: - fallback mode means two Gnome experiences, so people like myself that have a 3D capable desktop and a remote VNC session have to switch back and forth between two different modes of operation (i.e. no consistency) while using the same computer (really, really weird); Gnome 3 should look and work the same anywhere, just like Windows or OS X do; Gnome 2 is better here, although I have Compiz on my 3D capable machine and Metacity on the VNC desktop - activities "overview" is a mistake; it causes unnecessary visual change and it forces users to manage windows half in that view and half in the regular view - exposé behaviour in overview is compounding the previous mistake (i.e. the separate overview problem); it changes position and size of windows, forcing the user to visually search for windows yet again - windows/applications switch in overview is yet another mistake; in windows view, one can't actually see their windows the way they are, because they have been shuffled by exposé (workspaces are mostly hidden on the right, so that doesn't really count); applications menu should be accessible directly from the normal view (users don't need to suffer a visual change and forget what their current workspace looks like in order to start a new app) - dynamic workspaces are a mistake (although they look nice in theory), because people that use workspaces use them precisely to be able to visually locate different "activities" consistently; for example, if my FF crashes in Gnome 3 and is the only window in my "browsing" workspace, it will go to a completely different workspace on restart, therefore forcing me to visually search for it yet again (or I have to reshuffle everything again); combined with forced exposé (which most workspace users don't need, because their windows are not overlapping/hiding each other) it does exactly the opposite of what's desired (constant visual change in window placement, instead of a sense of stability) - dock (favourites) is in the wrong place, because most desktop screens (and Gnome 3 is primarily a desktop system) have a lot less pixels vertically then horizontally; in contrast, OS X dock is in the correct place (and I'm no fan of OS X at all) - removing two panels from Gnome 2 was an improvement (i.e. no need to walk mouse up/down all the time); introduction of yet another status bar at the bottom was a mistake (i.e. return to two panes, effectively) - lack of right click functionality on the empty desktop is strange; if users can get to some functionality that way, they should be able to (like they can in Gnome 2) I'm still working on some other critique, but the above are the main points. -- Bojan _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
