Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
TIA
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 14:55 -0500 schrieb Clyde E. Kunkel:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now.
And I'd like to know how to change themes. This is not yet implemented, right? As this affects other desktops as well (think of gnome-packagekit), it should be high priority.
And shouldn't GNOME apps respect xsettings anyway and pick up changes made say with xfce4-appearance-settings or lxappearance?
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 21:58 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 14:55 -0500 schrieb Clyde E. Kunkel:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now.
And I'd like to know how to change themes. This is not yet implemented, right? As this affects other desktops as well (think of gnome-packagekit), it should be high priority.
And shouldn't GNOME apps respect xsettings anyway and pick up changes made say with xfce4-appearance-settings or lxappearance?
There's a dconf key you can poke to change GTK theme (run dconf-editor and search for Adwaita and you should find it). What's not implemented is only a UI to allow easy user changing of the theme, AIUI.
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 13:15 -0800 schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 21:58 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 14:55 -0500 schrieb Clyde E. Kunkel:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now.
And I'd like to know how to change themes. This is not yet implemented, right? As this affects other desktops as well (think of gnome-packagekit), it should be high priority.
And shouldn't GNOME apps respect xsettings anyway and pick up changes made say with xfce4-appearance-settings or lxappearance?
There's a dconf key you can poke to change GTK theme (run dconf-editor and search for Adwaita and you should find it).
Unfortunately both dconf and dconf-editor are crashing on the livecd.
What about my other question: Shouldn't gnome-apps pick up xsettings or is this a GTK2 vs. GTK3 thing?
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:13 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 13:15 -0800 schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 21:58 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 14:55 -0500 schrieb Clyde E. Kunkel:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now.
And I'd like to know how to change themes. This is not yet implemented, right? As this affects other desktops as well (think of gnome-packagekit), it should be high priority.
And shouldn't GNOME apps respect xsettings anyway and pick up changes made say with xfce4-appearance-settings or lxappearance?
There's a dconf key you can poke to change GTK theme (run dconf-editor and search for Adwaita and you should find it).
Unfortunately both dconf and dconf-editor are crashing on the livecd.
What about my other question: Shouldn't gnome-apps pick up xsettings or is this a GTK2 vs. GTK3 thing?
They pick up XSettings, which are stored in GSettings, and exported through gnome-settings-daemon. See the xsettings plugin there.
Cheers
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 23:04 +0000 schrieb Bastien Nocera:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:13 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
What about my other question: Shouldn't gnome-apps pick up xsettings or is this a GTK2 vs. GTK3 thing?
They pick up XSettings, which are stored in GSettings, and exported through gnome-settings-daemon. See the xsettings plugin there.
Thanks for the info, however it doesn't work as I would expect. If you download the Xfce spin nightly you will see that GNOME apps like gpk-application are ignoring XSettings and look different than other Xfce or GTK apps and don't respond to theme changes as they did previously. gnome-settings-daemon is not running.
Regards, Christoph
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 00:21 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 23:04 +0000 schrieb Bastien Nocera:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:13 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
What about my other question: Shouldn't gnome-apps pick up xsettings or is this a GTK2 vs. GTK3 thing?
They pick up XSettings, which are stored in GSettings, and exported through gnome-settings-daemon. See the xsettings plugin there.
Thanks for the info, however it doesn't work as I would expect. If you download the Xfce spin nightly you will see that GNOME apps like gpk-application are ignoring XSettings and look different than other Xfce or GTK apps and don't respond to theme changes as they did previously. gnome-settings-daemon is not running.
You might want to check what XSettings actually get exported from XFCE's manager, and compare it to the list gnome-settings-daemon uses: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/plugins/xsettings/gsd...
And if you're mixing GTK2 and GTK3 applications, make sure your new theme has a GTK3 variant.
Cheers
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 21:58 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 14:55 -0500 schrieb Clyde E. Kunkel:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now.
And I'd like to know how to change themes. This is not yet implemented, right? As this affects other desktops as well (think of gnome-packagekit), it should be high priority.
And shouldn't GNOME apps respect xsettings anyway and pick up changes made say with xfce4-appearance-settings or lxappearance?
GTK+ 2 and 3 respect the same theme and fonts settings as they always have. There is two things to keep in mind
1) The xsettings manager implementation in gnome-settings-daemon is now backed by dconf, no longer gconf. So to change, you can e.g.
gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface gtk-theme 'Clearlooks' gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface font-name 'Sans'
2) The theme setting affects both GTK+ 2 and 3, and the only theme that is currently available for both is 'Adwaita'.
Am Freitag, den 18.02.2011, 14:36 -0500 schrieb Matthias Clasen:
- The xsettings manager implementation in gnome-settings-daemon is now
backed by dconf, no longer gconf. So to change, you can e.g.
gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface gtk-theme 'Clearlooks' gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface font-name 'Sans'
- The theme setting affects both GTK+ 2 and 3, and the only theme that
is currently available for both is 'Adwaita'.
Thanks a lot, Matthias.
Setting the theme to Adwaita did the trick. Both GTK+ 2 and 3 are more consistent now and use the same color palette.
However I noticed that the GTK+ 2 theme looks very different from the GTK+ 3 version, e.g. the menus have rounded corners while they should have sharp edges. Overall it looks very similar to Clearlooks.
What can we do to get a more consistent look in Fedora 15? As I doubt we will be able to port everything to GTK+ 3 we need to provide a better match and more matching themes. What would be the best starting point to bring Adwaita to GTK+ 2 or Clearlooks to GTk+ 3?
Regards, Christoph
Am Samstag, den 19.02.2011, 12:20 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
What would be the best starting point to bring Adwaita to GTK+ 2 or Clearlooks to GTk+ 3?
Digging a little deeper I found that Clearlooks already has an engine:
$ find /usr/lib/gtk-* -name libclearlooks.so /usr/lib/gtk-2/2.10.0/engines/libclearlooks.so /usr/lib/gtk-3/3.0.0/theming-engines/libclearlooks.so
I have started working on the gtk.css file. Is somebody else already working on this?
Regards, Christoph
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:47:17 +0100 Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Samstag, den 19.02.2011, 12:20 +0100 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
What would be the best starting point to bring Adwaita to GTK+ 2 or Clearlooks to GTk+ 3?
Digging a little deeper I found that Clearlooks already has an engine:
$ find /usr/lib/gtk-* -name libclearlooks.so /usr/lib/gtk-2/2.10.0/engines/libclearlooks.so /usr/lib/gtk-3/3.0.0/theming-engines/libclearlooks.so
I have started working on the gtk.css file. Is somebody else already working on this?
Well, I've quickly tried putting something together for personal use (basically just modifying Adwaitha css to use clearlooks...). What I discovered is that either I'm dumb enough to not be able to cope with CSS or Clearlooks gtk3 engine is far from finished (or, after peeking at its code, both).
Cheers, Martin
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 15:57 +0100, Martin Sourada wrote:
Well, I've quickly tried putting something together for personal use (basically just modifying Adwaitha css to use clearlooks...). What I discovered is that either I'm dumb enough to not be able to cope with CSS or Clearlooks gtk3 engine is far from finished (or, after peeking at its code, both).
Hard to say without any details about the problems you are facing, but the engine in gtk-theme-engine-clearlooks is essentially the GTK2 engine with some patches to make it work against the new theme engine API, so I don't see how it could be much more unfinished that the old one.
Anyway, as I said, I won't have time to assist with this much, before GNOME 3.
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 12:20 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Freitag, den 18.02.2011, 14:36 -0500 schrieb Matthias Clasen:
Thanks a lot, Matthias.
Setting the theme to Adwaita did the trick. Both GTK+ 2 and 3 are more consistent now and use the same color palette.
However I noticed that the GTK+ 2 theme looks very different from the GTK+ 3 version, e.g. the menus have rounded corners while they should have sharp edges. Overall it looks very similar to Clearlooks.
Well, the GTK2 Adwaita theme is using the Clearlooks engine, so its not a huge surprise...
What can we do to get a more consistent look in Fedora 15? As I doubt we will be able to port everything to GTK+ 3 we need to provide a better match and more matching themes. What would be the best starting point to bring Adwaita to GTK+ 2 or Clearlooks to GTk+ 3?
To bring Clearlooks to GTK3, take the gtk-theme-engine-clearlooks package as a starting point; the engine should almost work with GTK3 (not sure if it has been kept uptodate in the last round of GTK+ api changes, after we got Adwaita); and the Clearlooks theme needs to be ported to the GTK3 css syntax.
To bring Adwaita to GTK2, take the changes in gtk-theme-engine-clearlooks and backport them to the GTK2 Clearlooks engine in gtk2-engines; then update the GTK2 Adwaita theme in gnome-themes-standard to get as close to the GTK3 version as is feasible.
I don't see anybody on the GNOME side having time to take this one before GNOME 3, really. What little resources we have will have to go into a11y and dark variants of Adwaita.
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:55 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
search for "Universal Access" (under system settings), and change the "text size".
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 21:31 +0000 schrieb Bastien Nocera:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:55 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
search for "Universal Access" (under system settings), and change the "text size".
So this is a system-wide setting??
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 21:31 +0000 schrieb Bastien Nocera:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:55 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
search for "Universal Access" (under system settings), and change the "text size".
So this is a system-wide setting??
No, "system settings" is what the panel is called, it has nothing to do with "system wide"
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 22:40 +0100 schrieb drago01:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 21:31 +0000 schrieb Bastien Nocera:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:55 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
search for "Universal Access" (under system settings), and change the "text size".
So this is a system-wide setting??
No, "system settings" is what the panel is called, it has nothing to do with "system wide"
In system-settings "Universal Access" is listed under "System" together with other settings like "Users" or "Time and Date". This is confusing. People need to know what changes affect the whole system and what only affects their account. Currently we have this by separating "Preferences" from "Administration".
In F15 under System we have: * User Accounts (system-wide) * Universal Access (per user) * System Info (not even a setting) * Software Updates (per user) * Date and Time (system-wide) * Color (per user unless you click "make default")
I think this list is inconsistent.
Regards, Christoph
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 22:59 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 22:40 +0100 schrieb drago01:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 21:31 +0000 schrieb Bastien Nocera:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:55 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
search for "Universal Access" (under system settings), and change the "text size".
So this is a system-wide setting??
No, "system settings" is what the panel is called, it has nothing to do with "system wide"
In system-settings "Universal Access" is listed under "System" together with other settings like "Users" or "Time and Date". This is confusing. People need to know what changes affect the whole system and what only affects their account. Currently we have this by separating "Preferences" from "Administration".
If you disagree with how the different panels and preferences are sorted, then please file a bug upstream. It won't magically be changed by making remarks here.
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:02 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
If you disagree with how the different panels and preferences are sorted, then please file a bug upstream. It won't magically be changed by making remarks her
It should be sufficient to file a bug in bugzilla.redhat.com
JBG
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:14 +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:02 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
If you disagree with how the different panels and preferences are sorted, then please file a bug upstream. It won't magically be changed by making remarks her
It should be sufficient to file a bug in bugzilla.redhat.com
Except that we won't be taking decisions from discussions within the Red Hat bugzilla (which wouldn't be well perceived within the upstream community), and that you'll just be making us do the work of moving the bug, taking into consideration whether the bug is worthwhile moving, after we had a chance to look at it.
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:32 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Except that we won't be taking decisions from discussions within the Red Hat bugzilla (which wouldn't be well perceived within the upstream community), and that you'll just be making us do the work of moving the bug, taking into consideration whether the bug is worthwhile moving, after we had a chance to look at it.
It falls under packager/maintainer responsibility to act as a liaison between upstream and downstream.
When reporters are ready and willing they themselves will join and start working directly with upstream whether that upstream consist of a single application or a whole community such as the Gnome one.
JBG
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 00:26 +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:32 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Except that we won't be taking decisions from discussions within the Red Hat bugzilla (which wouldn't be well perceived within the upstream community), and that you'll just be making us do the work of moving the bug, taking into consideration whether the bug is worthwhile moving, after we had a chance to look at it.
It falls under packager/maintainer responsibility to act as a liaison between upstream and downstream.
When reporters are ready and willing they themselves will join and start working directly with upstream whether that upstream consist of a single application or a whole community such as the Gnome one.
Sorry, just not many hours in the day to handle both the downstream and the upstream bugzilla.
Given that the UI freeze is on Monday for GNOME 3, I'm probably not going to get a chance of looking at bugs in the Red Hat bugzilla before the F15 release, unless it's a blocker.
If we had people triaging bugs for the core GNOME desktop, it would certainly help, but we don't. So I focus on the upstream bugzilla, which is more likely to be current.
If we had people triaging bugs for the core GNOME desktop, it would certainly help, but we don't. So I focus on the upstream bugzilla, which is more likely to be current.
I suggest you try asking on the test list or do the more formal procedure and request for more triage resources in the fedora QA track instance on fedora hosted.
I'm pretty sure the triage team will bring up on next meeting and formalize a Gnome triage team for this release cycle and given how many triage joining introduction we have on the test list they should have sufficient resource to spare for such a team.
One thing I've learned through out these years is you never get what you dont ask for..
JBG
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 22:59 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
In F15 under System we have: * User Accounts (system-wide) * Universal Access (per user) * System Info (not even a setting) * Software Updates (per user) * Date and Time (system-wide) * Color (per user unless you click "make default")
I think this list is inconsistent.
Agreed.
I think this can be solved by hiding all system-wide settings from user accounts that don't have the account type "Administrator"
One thing that are tied to those settings that it's hard to different when your are being asked to provide the root password or the logged in user password or the "Administrator" password.
JBG
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:08 +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 22:59 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
In F15 under System we have: * User Accounts (system-wide) * Universal Access (per user) * System Info (not even a setting) * Software Updates (per user) * Date and Time (system-wide) * Color (per user unless you click "make default")
I think this list is inconsistent.
Agreed.
I think this can be solved by hiding all system-wide settings from user accounts that don't have the account type "Administrator"
Except that for most of the settings, the line between preferences and settings is quite blurry (for example, the "Date & Time" allows you to change the timezone for the system, but also your preference for 12h or 24h clock display).
One thing that are tied to those settings that it's hard to different when your are being asked to provide the root password or the logged in user password or the "Administrator" password.
That's a very fair point. File it upstream please.
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:57 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Except that for most of the settings, the line between preferences and settings is quite blurry (for example, the "Date & Time" allows you to change the timezone for the system, but also your preference for 12h or 24h clock display).
That's probably the reason why changing the clock to 24H reporting in your account which has a role as administrator is not reflected to the clock present in GDM.
I'm not so sure why you want to allow each user to change the time/clock settings et all that should just be handled by the administrator from my perspective.
One thing that are tied to those settings that it's hard to
different
when your are being asked to provide the root password or the logged
in
user password or the "Administrator" password.
That's a very fair point. File it upstream please.
You do realize that if I wanted to participate upstream in any way or form we would be having that discussion there not on this list and that applies probably to most Fedora community members since most if not all of us are very capable of joining and participating in the upstream community's chooses we do so and that's something the Desktop team seems to be having trouble to understand and or grasp since you( as in the Desktop team ) are pushing the upstream Gnome bit strongly on Fedora community these days or so it seems...
Speaking for myself I have chosen to settle on participating in one community and that community is the Fedora community and even if I wanted to be a part of more then one community I simply don't have the time and even if I did have the time my first choice would not be the Gnome community due to various reasons.
JBG
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johannbg@gmail.com) said:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:57 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
That's a very fair point. File it upstream please.
You do realize that if I wanted to participate upstream in any way or form we would be having that discussion there not on this list and that applies probably to most Fedora community members since most if not all of us are very capable of joining and participating in the upstream community's chooses we do so and that's something the Desktop team seems to be having trouble to understand and or grasp since you( as in the Desktop team ) are pushing the upstream Gnome bit strongly on Fedora community these days or so it seems...
Speaking for myself I have chosen to settle on participating in one community and that community is the Fedora community and even if I wanted to be a part of more then one community I simply don't have the time and even if I did have the time my first choice would not be the Gnome community due to various reasons.
So, when told of the best, quickest, most efficient way to get your problem solved, you'd rather write condescending bullshit that justifies *not* getting involved, rather than work to solve your issues? Seriously?
Bill
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 21:00 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
So, when told of the best, quickest, most efficient way to get your problem solved, you'd rather write condescending bullshit that justifies *not* getting involved, rather than work to solve your issues? Seriously?
Interesting to see that you categories working through our bugzilla instance as not being involved but working through upstream bugzilla is.
It's also interesting to see that you seem to be categorizing bugs as individuals "issues" and that "issue" only affects one person..
I guess me been spending now 2 hours trying to recreate one of those tough to catch bugs ( 678448 ) hard to duplicate, it does not always crash bug in evolution at 03:00 in the morning trying to catch that sucker to give the maintainer actually something to work with is not considered contribution in your books or being involved...
Owen has made it perfectly clear to me that they wont be fixing any UI Design ( bugs ) before GNOME 3.0 So excuse me that I dont jump on a horse ride to Gnome land file a UI design ( bug ) that wont get fixed anyway before we release F15....
Regarding the whole file upstream mantra that just takes the load of the maintainer in question and puts it on the reporters.
Today we are focusing on X that would require us to have an upstream X account tomorrow we are testing KDE that would require us to have on upstream KDE account on sunday it x on monday it's y. etc etc I'm pretty sure you can do the math here..
Now let's say I was new I had interest to join the reporters group of QA and I have barely gone through our documentation and learned our bugzilla behavior when it's demanded of me that I create account and go through upstream documentation to learn their bugzilla behavior to file bug there ahh.. but it gets more complicated not all upstream is using bugzilla let's all increase the learning curve for the new guy just so we can save the maintainer some time...
So if you feel what I wrote was some condescending bullshit then by all mean feel that way everybody has a right of their own opinion.
From my perspective it seriously feels like I need to draw a picture for
people to understand what I'm getting at when maintainers scream upstream because those maintainers usually look at us reporters as a nuance and have a hard time looking at things from our side...
JBG
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johannbg@gmail.com) said:
I guess me been spending now 2 hours trying to recreate one of those tough to catch bugs ( 678448 ) hard to duplicate, it does not always crash bug in evolution at 03:00 in the morning trying to catch that sucker to give the maintainer actually something to work with is not considered contribution in your books or being involved...
Nowhere did I say that. What I said is...
Owen has made it perfectly clear to me that they wont be fixing any UI Design ( bugs ) before GNOME 3.0 So excuse me that I dont jump on a horse ride to Gnome land file a UI design ( bug ) that wont get fixed anyway before we release F15....
... if you have interest in getting a bug fixed, then work where the maintainers of the software work to get their issues handled, wherever possible.
Is it a pain sometimes? Absolutely. Does it require sublimating your ego? Yes.
But it's the best way *to actually get your issues fixed*!
Regarding the whole file upstream mantra that just takes the load of the maintainer in question and puts it on the reporters.
That's an unfortunate reality of how it works best.
Take two scenarios:
- A piece of software, with an upstream bug tracker. The maintainer is expected to work there, take the lists of issues that need fixed, track their issues there, etc. - A piece of software, where the maintainer is expected to balance their issues across ten separate downstream bugtrackers, people that just send them random e-mail, people that poke them on irc on multiple networks, and so on.
Sure, the second of these takes the load off the reporters. But it doesn't actually work well to develop software coherently, remember all the issues that need addressed, and so on.
Today we are focusing on X that would require us to have an upstream X account tomorrow we are testing KDE that would require us to have on upstream KDE account on sunday it x on monday it's y. etc etc I'm pretty sure you can do the math here..
*shrug* I have a bz account at FreeDesktop, GNOME, KDE (iirc, haven't used it much), even the pit of despair that was/is the SF bug tracker. I'm still alive.
Now let's say I was new I had interest to join the reporters group of QA and I have barely gone through our documentation and learned our bugzilla behavior when it's demanded of me that I create account and go through upstream documentation to learn their bugzilla behavior to file bug there ahh.. but it gets more complicated not all upstream is using bugzilla let's all increase the learning curve for the new guy just so we can save the maintainer some time...
The new guys (aka, end users?) that don't have an understanding of processes should probably not be using the same bug trackers as the developers, for better or worse. (It's why most organizations don't have engineering working on anything that comes through support, for example.) Experienced people taking leadership positions in testing, development, packaging should be held to a higher standard, IMO.
So if you feel what I wrote was some condescending bullshit then by all mean feel that way everybody has a right of their own opinion.
From my perspective it seriously feels like I need to draw a picture for people to understand what I'm getting at when maintainers scream upstream because those maintainers usually look at us reporters as a nuance and have a hard time looking at things from our side...
To put it simply; you had an issue. You are *asking* someone to fix it for you. They mentioned the best way to get it addressed. You then responded that you refuse to operate that way based on your principles of how development should work. There's almost no way that doesn't come off as arrogant and obnoxious, which is generally *NOT* the best way to influence people to fix the issues that you have.
Bill
On 02/21/2011 05:39 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Nowhere did I say that. What I said is...
Owen has made it perfectly clear to me that they wont be fixing any UI Design ( bugs ) before GNOME 3.0 So excuse me that I dont jump on a horse ride to Gnome land file a UI design ( bug ) that wont get fixed anyway before we release F15....
... if you have interest in getting a bug fixed, then work where the maintainers of the software work to get their issues handled, wherever possible.
Is it a pain sometimes? Absolutely. Does it require sublimating your ego? Yes.
But it's the best way *to actually get your issues fixed*!
There is no such thing as an *individuals* issue bugs affect more then one.
Regarding the whole file upstream mantra that just takes the load of the maintainer in question and puts it on the reporters.
That's an unfortunate reality of how it works best.
Take two scenarios:
- A piece of software, with an upstream bug tracker. The maintainer is expected to work there, take the lists of issues that need fixed, track their issues there, etc.
- A piece of software, where the maintainer is expected to balance their issues across ten separate downstream bugtrackers, people that just send them random e-mail, people that poke them on irc on multiple networks, and so on.
Sure, the second of these takes the load off the reporters. But it doesn't actually work well to develop software coherently, remember all the issues that need addressed, and so on.
Those issues exist there solely by the hands of the maintainer(s).
The better they test they code before exposing it to end user(s) reduces the reports both from their upstream and any downstream trackers they are involved with..
That is the reality...
Today we are focusing on X that would require us to have an upstream X account tomorrow we are testing KDE that would require us to have on upstream KDE account on sunday it x on monday it's y. etc etc I'm pretty sure you can do the math here..
*shrug* I have a bz account at FreeDesktop, GNOME, KDE (iirc, haven't used it much), even the pit of despair that was/is the SF bug tracker. I'm still alive.
I have bz account on various places and probably 2 on Gnome one from my <2 Gnome release testing heck if I did have one on helix code here back in the day I'm also still alive so?
Now let's say I was new I had interest to join the reporters group of QA and I have barely gone through our documentation and learned our bugzilla behavior when it's demanded of me that I create account and go through upstream documentation to learn their bugzilla behavior to file bug there ahh.. but it gets more complicated not all upstream is using bugzilla let's all increase the learning curve for the new guy just so we can save the maintainer some time...
The new guys (aka, end users?) that don't have an understanding of processes should probably not be using the same bug trackers as the developers, for better or worse. (It's why most organizations don't have engineering working on anything that comes through support, for example.) Experienced people taking leadership positions in testing, development, packaging should be held to a higher standard, IMO.
End users reporting are taking their first step becoming reporters when they file their first report and given how their responded to on their first report will determine if they will continue reporting and become valuable members of the ( QA ) community and it is interesting to see you mention that certain people should be held to certain standards given some packagers/maintainers interaction ( or lack there of ) in bugzilla and other places..
We need to have a healthy grow of reporters in our community for various of our QA processes to work ( like proven testers ) and to do so we need to have the least barriers of entry point along with the fact that we cannot assume certain level of skill set or experience from a reporter ( which btw is why I write spoon feeding how do debug documentation ) when he is reporting and we need to give as much positive feedback and encouragement back to him and it's is up to us ( us as in the community ) to gradually teach him and be a supportive step in his journey to become a valuable useful reporter which when ready and willing they themselves will join and start working directly with upstream and that is the reason why I'm am so opposed to maintainers directing reporters upstream just to make that clear.
Looking at reporters as nuance with issues a thorn in maintainers side which unfortunately many maintainers do is not the way to go.
Fortunately not all maintainers share the same view and look at reporters as a valuable asset at their disposal when needed.
So if you feel what I wrote was some condescending bullshit then by all mean feel that way everybody has a right of their own opinion.
From my perspective it seriously feels like I need to draw a picture for people to understand what I'm getting at when maintainers scream upstream because those maintainers usually look at us reporters as a nuance and have a hard time looking at things from our side...
To put it simply; you had an issue. You are *asking* someone to fix it for you. They mentioned the best way to get it addressed. You then responded that you refuse to operate that way based on your principles of how development should work.
Oh I did?
Care to point me out where I mentioned that I refused to operate that way based on my principal of how development should work?
I'm just a bit curious to know since me refusing to work directly with upstream Gnome is strictly personal.
There's almost no way that doesn't come off as arrogant and obnoxious, which is generally *NOT* the best way to influence people to fix the issues that you have.
I merely *pointed* out that it's was hard to different when your are being asked to provide the "root" password or the logged in "user" password or the "Administrator" password.
If you think I'm egotistic,arrogant and obnoxious and feel offended that I wont go upstream to report this then by all means be offended.
Again everyone has a title to their opinion and if that's your personal opinion of me than so be it live goes on..
If those "issues" wont get fixed that will reflect badly on "Gnome" ( and unfortunately the project in whole since we have a "Default" which would happen regardless of what that default might be and any issue that it might have ) but hopefully those users wont leave "Fedora" but instead try some of the other *DE we have and strengthen the community surrounding them and vs versa for any other *DE and any issue they might have..
There is absolutely nothing more of value I can add to this thread I've explained as much as I can and as best as I can and since this thread is turning into personal attack against me this will be my last response to it..
JBG
On 02/17/2011 04:31 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:55 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
search for "Universal Access" (under system settings), and change the "text size".
My eyes are grateful. Thanks. How do we change the font style now? I tried changing themes in the gconf-editor but the changes didn't take.
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 17:56 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 02/17/2011 04:31 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:55 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
search for "Universal Access" (under system settings), and change the "text size".
My eyes are grateful. Thanks. How do we change the font style now?
Read the archives of this list, it's already been discussed.
I tried changing themes in the gconf-editor but the changes didn't take.
Try dconf-editor instead.
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:03 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 17:56 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 02/17/2011 04:31 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:55 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
search for "Universal Access" (under system settings), and change the "text size".
My eyes are grateful. Thanks. How do we change the font style now?
Read the archives of this list, it's already been discussed.
I tried changing themes in the gconf-editor but the changes didn't take.
Try dconf-editor instead.
dconf-editor is a bit crashy for me at times, I usually use the gsettings commandline app instead:
gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface gtk-theme "clearlooks"
See gsettings help for other commands.
On 02/18/2011 02:38 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 23:03 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
<snip> Read the archives of this list, it's already been discussed.
I tried changing themes in the gconf-editor but the changes didn't take.
Try dconf-editor instead.
dconf-editor is a bit crashy for me at times, I usually use the gsettings commandline app instead:
gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface gtk-theme "clearlooks"
See gsettings help for other commands.
Thank you very much for the useful reply. This has been quite an adventure and I am sure there is more to come.
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:31:41 +0000 Bastien Nocera bnocera@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:55 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please, oh please, someone tell me how to change the fonts in gnome 3 now. My old eyes, even with glasses and a magnifying glass are starting to hurt.
search for "Universal Access" (under system settings), and change the "text size".
So I'm coming just a little late to this conversation...I found it through trying to solve the same problem.
The "Universal Access" button is not where I would think to look for ordinary system settings. But I went there, and found two options to make the fonts bigger than they are now.
I don't want them bigger. They just *got* bigger through the occasional (seemingly) mandatory forgetting of all my previous settings, to the point that they take more screen space than I want. I want the fonts smaller. How do I do that?
Seriously, can it be that a classic font selection dialog, like what we've had since, well, forever, is too much for GNOME 3? I feel like I'm missing something. We have different monitors, different needs, different preferences; a single font selection will never work for everybody. Please tell me this is coming back?
Thanks,
jon
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 17:30, Jonathan Corbet corbet-ft@lwn.net wrote:
I don't want them bigger. They just *got* bigger through the occasional (seemingly) mandatory forgetting of all my previous settings, to the point that they take more screen space than I want. I want the fonts smaller. How do I do that?
I did a little research and it seems that the change from 10pt to 11pt default happened here: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gsettings-desktop-schemas/commit/?id=1124b365d24... which seems rather anecdotal so perhaps it could be revisited especially if it breaks netbook compatibility or something like that.
You may also be hit by this not having yet been pushed out to you: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.0.1-4.fc15 which significantly improves the font rendering in F15.
What we're trying to do is come up with sane defaults for plenty of good user interface reasons. I mean, if we give someone a Linux laptop and the first thing we tell them to do is go change a bunch of settings to make it usable, then we have failed to produce an OS which is worth giving to anyone but enthusiasts (have you changed the default fonts on your Nexus One, by the way?).
Anyway, if you can provide some screen shots that show that the new default is not sane, that would be helpful.
Seriously, can it be that a classic font selection dialog, like what we've had since, well, forever, is too much for GNOME 3? I feel like I'm missing something. We have different monitors, different needs, different preferences; a single font selection will never work for everybody. Please tell me this is coming back?
Since you're clearly a bit of a more advanced user, you may be interested in changing the dconf key that I referenced in the first link though `gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface font-name 'Cantarell 10'` and in the future, when dconf-editor stops crashing continuously, you could do the same though a GUI tool.
There's also discussion of creating a "power-users settings tool" for users who are disgruntled by some common defaults but, obviously our limited resources being what they are, we haven't even started any such project at this point--all our energy is focused on giving good experience out-of-the-box and, as you have seen, we still have a lot of bugs to squash before April.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:38:23 -0600 "Jason D. Clinton" me@jasonclinton.com wrote:
What we're trying to do is come up with sane defaults for plenty of good user interface reasons. I mean, if we give someone a Linux laptop and the first thing we tell them to do is go change a bunch of settings to make it usable, then we have failed to produce an OS which is worth giving to anyone but enthusiasts (have you changed the default fonts on your Nexus One, by the way?).
I'm all for sane defaults. Nobody is arguing against sane defaults. But I spend all day staring at my screen, and I do not believe that "sane" means "optimal for my particular use of the system."
Please make sane defaults. But please realize that they will never work for everybody. If you take away the ability to change fonts, I predict that you will lose a lot of users. That's not sane, that's "we know better," and it will upset people.
[Along those lines, am I ever going to regain the ability to put the control key back where $DEITY meant it to be without having to use xmodmap?]
[And yes, I've changed most of the settings on my N1. Several times after various reinstalls. The N1 lets me do it.]
Anyway, if you can provide some screen shots that show that the new default is not sane, that would be helpful.
Despite my advanced age, my visual acuity is pretty good, but my screen space is always limited. I can show you that the bigger fonts crowd things out, force the creation of scrollbars where I had none before, and generally waste space that I can use better. But why should I have to do that? Why should I have to convince you that my preferences are "sane"?
Since you're clearly a bit of a more advanced user, you may be interested in changing the dconf key that I referenced in the first link though `gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface font-name 'Cantarell 10'` and in the future, when dconf-editor stops crashing continuously, you could do the same though a GUI tool.
Why that's better than the font selector that we all know well is a mystery to me. This stuff used to Just Work.
There's also discussion of creating a "power-users settings tool" for users who are disgruntled by some common defaults but
Such a tool would be a good thing. The alternative is that quite a few of those users are likely to go somewhere else. Some will do so quite loudly. You've seen what happens when a desktop environment upsets its users with a major update; are you really not concerned about repeating that history?
Sorry if I sound strident. I like GNOME, I've been using it for a long time. I'd hate to see things go wrong in such an unnecessary way.
Thanks,
jon
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 17:43, Jonathan Corbet corbet-ft@lwn.net wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:38:23 -0600 "Jason D. Clinton" me@jasonclinton.com wrote:
What we're trying to do is come up with sane defaults for plenty of good user interface reasons. I mean, if we give someone a Linux laptop and the first thing we tell them to do is go change a bunch of settings to make
it
usable, then we have failed to produce an OS which is worth giving to
anyone
but enthusiasts (have you changed the default fonts on your Nexus One, by the way?).
I'm all for sane defaults. Nobody is arguing against sane defaults. But I spend all day staring at my screen, and I do not believe that "sane" means "optimal for my particular use of the system."
Please make sane defaults. But please realize that they will never work for everybody.
The evidence is quite to the contrary. From the body of successful, widely deployed competition to GNOME is that, indeed, a good default font seems to work for just about everyone (modulo a11y). We've done our homework, believe me; here's a copy of *just* the whiteboard of the work done on this: https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/Font And that doesn't include all of the discussion and debate that has occurred among the designers and implementors. And that's *just* the fonts control panel!
We *are* trying hard to get it right. It's like urban planing: it's really hard to figure out which buildings are the right ones to knock down so that progress can be made. This just happened to be one of them and one which you cared for. However, it was likely the right decision.
That isn't to say that the default which has been selected is correct. It seems correct to me but perhaps you are seeing some kind of DPI-related scaling issue which is making 11pt quite incorrect. (You should be at 96 DPI and some xdpyinfo output might be helpful here.)
If you take away the ability to change fonts, I predict
that you will lose a lot of users. That's not sane, that's "we know better," and it will upset people.
Yes, some people will leave; particularly, power users who are comfortable spending hours getting their desktop just the way they want it--KDE, xmonad, and Awesome are all great for that kind of user. But I hope they'll enjoy the improvement in user experience and that will convince them to stay. Developers are users, too.
[Along those lines, am I ever going to regain the ability to put the
control key back where $DEITY meant it to be without having to use xmodmap?]
I don't know the answer to this question; perhaps Owen can jump in here.
[And yes, I've changed most of the settings on my N1. Several times after various reinstalls. The N1 lets me do it.]
Well, I have an N1 and have put custom ROM's on it and utterly failed at changing the defaults to anything that didn't result in epicly breaking the rendering of applications from Market. I intended that as evidence support my position. ;-)
Anyway, if you can provide some screen shots that show that the new default
is not sane, that would be helpful.
Despite my advanced age, my visual acuity is pretty good, but my screen space is always limited. I can show you that the bigger fonts crowd things out, force the creation of scrollbars where I had none before, and generally waste space that I can use better. But why should I have to do that? Why should I have to convince you that my preferences are "sane"?
Only looking for a DPI-related bug, that's all.
Since you're clearly a bit of a more advanced user, you may be interested in
changing the dconf key that I referenced in the first link though
`gsettings
set org.gnome.desktop.interface font-name 'Cantarell 10'` and in the
future,
when dconf-editor stops crashing continuously, you could do the same
though
a GUI tool.
Why that's better than the font selector that we all know well is a mystery to me. This stuff used to Just Work.
There's two really specific cases where having yet-another-control-panel-applet is not good: discovery of the settings that users *should* want to change and, in the support side of things, users who change the font, don't know what they've done, and then have to call to $linux_savvy_family_member or $corporate_IT_help_desk. We added the a11y mechanism to handle vision-related needs specific to fonts in a way that was simultaneously safe without requiring an entire applet.
It seems like a clear conclusion that someone who actually knows how to change the font of their entire desktop in a way which could potentially break their desktop should also know how to fire up dconf-editor.
There's also discussion of creating a "power-users settings tool" for users
who are disgruntled by some common defaults but
Such a tool would be a good thing. The alternative is that quite a few of those users are likely to go somewhere else. Some will do so quite loudly. You've seen what happens when a desktop environment upsets its users with a major update; are you really not concerned about repeating that history?
Sorry if I sound strident. I like GNOME, I've been using it for a long time. I'd hate to see things go wrong in such an unnecessary way.
But I think that most will stay; the Shell is a huge usability improvement and the way we went about moving from GTK+ 2.x to 3.x has preserved a code base continuity that KDE could not do in the transition from Qt 3.x to 4.x. Almost everything, application-wise, is exactly identical to what people are used to.
Are we taking some risk? Sure. Do you remember "10x10?" GNOME has existed for nearly 15 years and we've gotten, essentially, no where. We have no more desktop/laptop market share than we had 10 years ago. Looking back at the origination of the 10x10 goal in 2005, it's really awe-inspiring to think that we used to be so optimistic while simultaneously being so naive.
We have to, as it is popular in the design community to say, make computer not suck and so far we've utterly failed at that. I think that most in the GNOME project have come around to a pragmatic approach in our Linux advocacy (remember, we're on the same side here!): we're tired of spinning our wheels repeating the same mistakes over and over again without any measurable improvement in user experience or adoption. For example, this email has been passed around inside the GNOME community again and again; it seems to resonate with a lot of us: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
We think that we are making the right decisions and that, hopefully, you'll finally be able to put a GNOME computer in front of a normal person and not have them run away kicking and screaming. Maybe 3.0 won't quite be there yet but we're on the right path, anyway.
I hope this email changes your mind about the removable of the Font capplet but even if it doesn't, please give Shell a chance; I think you'll find that it's a net improvement.
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 19:06 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
That isn't to say that the default which has been selected is correct. It seems correct to me but perhaps you are seeing some kind of DPI-related scaling issue which is making 11pt quite incorrect. (You should be at 96 DPI and some xdpyinfo output might be helpful here.)
The native DPI of one of my laptops is 221 (Sony Vaio P) and the other is 140 (Vaio Z). Needless to say, 11pt at 96dpi looks fairly uselessly tiny on both. Assuming 96dpi seems rather the contrary of all the other design decisions in GNOME 3 - assuming brokenness and accommodating it, rather than 'doing the right thing' for the long term.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 20:33, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 19:06 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
That isn't to say that the default which has been selected is correct. It seems correct to me but perhaps you are seeing some kind of DPI-related scaling issue which is making 11pt quite incorrect. (You should be at 96 DPI and some xdpyinfo output might be helpful here.)
The native DPI of one of my laptops is 221 (Sony Vaio P) and the other is 140 (Vaio Z). Needless to say, 11pt at 96dpi looks fairly uselessly tiny on both. Assuming 96dpi seems rather the contrary of all the other design decisions in GNOME 3 - assuming brokenness and accommodating it, rather than 'doing the right thing' for the long term.
And what do you have the X server report when you plug said laptops in to external monitors or projectors? It's not even remotely a trivial problem to solve...
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 20:46 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
The native DPI of one of my laptops is 221 (Sony Vaio P) and the other is 140 (Vaio Z). Needless to say, 11pt at 96dpi looks fairly uselessly tiny on both. Assuming 96dpi seems rather the contrary of all the other design decisions in GNOME 3 - assuming brokenness and accommodating it, rather than 'doing the right thing' for the long term.
And what do you have the X server report when you plug said laptops in to external monitors or projectors? It's not even remotely a trivial problem to solve...
How about defaulting to 96dpi when you don't know any better, rather than all the time?
I know it's not a trivial problem to solve. (this is, of course, why historically there was a setting for it.) It does seem odd, though, that the chosen 'solution' is rather in the opposite vein to the trend of other chosen 'solutions' for GNOME 3, which is all I said.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 21:01, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
How about defaulting to 96dpi when you don't know any better, rather than all the time?
I know it's not a trivial problem to solve. (this is, of course, why historically there was a setting for it.) It does seem odd, though, that the chosen 'solution' is rather in the opposite vein to the trend of other chosen 'solutions' for GNOME 3, which is all I said.
I must say I'm weary and flabbergasted that I am once again facilitating communication between Red Hat employees. Please refer to the names in the linked design document. Maybe you guys could even reserve a conference room, resort to fisticuffs and let the rest of us know how it all turned out.
I'm just an increasingly weary volunteer on the GNOME Marketing Team... don't shoot the messenger.
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 21:04 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 21:01, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote: How about defaulting to 96dpi when you don't know any better, rather than all the time?
I know it's not a trivial problem to solve. (this is, of course, why historically there was a setting for it.) It does seem odd, though, that the chosen 'solution' is rather in the opposite vein to the trend of other chosen 'solutions' for GNOME 3, which is all I said.
I must say I'm weary and flabbergasted that I am once again facilitating communication between Red Hat employees. Please refer to the names in the linked design document. Maybe you guys could even reserve a conference room, resort to fisticuffs and let the rest of us know how it all turned out.
Why would you assume that all Red Hat employees should have the same positions? There's thousands of us, and no particular 'company line' on this.
I'm just an increasingly weary volunteer on the GNOME Marketing Team... don't shoot the messenger.
Besides, this is a public mailing list. You personally aren't facilitating anything. I wasn't talking to you in particular.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 21:46, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Why would you assume that all Red Hat employees should have the same positions? There's thousands of us, and no particular 'company line' on this.
Not all, and it's not about any particular opinion. The dearth of information among some of you, not all of you, is the problem. In your specific case, it would be really helpful if you would at least /join #gnome-shell and #gnome-design so that you can answer some of the stuff that comes up on the -test list from an informed position.
We're trying really hard to stay on message and keep people in the wider community informed and then I see threads like this < http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-February/097081.html%3E where a Red Hat employee *paid* to work on the desktop somehow manages to throw factually inaccurate gasoline on an already burning fire. It's really disheartening.
I actually banged my head on my desk when you did that.
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 22:09 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 21:46, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote: Why would you assume that all Red Hat employees should have the same positions? There's thousands of us, and no particular 'company line' on this.
Not all, and it's not about any particular opinion. The dearth of information among some of you, not all of you, is the problem. In your specific case, it would be really helpful if you would at least /join #gnome-shell and #gnome-design so that you can answer some of the stuff that comes up on the -test list from an informed position.
I can hardly be expected to follow the IRC channel for every downstream project that ships in Fedora. I'm in too many and don't have time to read all of them already. Adding more isn't going to help.
We're trying really hard to stay on message and keep people in the wider community informed and then I see threads like this http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-February/097081.html where a Red Hat employee *paid* to work on the desktop somehow manages to throw factually inaccurate gasoline on an already burning fire. It's really disheartening.
I actually banged my head on my desk when you did that.
I did ask you to correct me if I was wrong...but I'm not sure I was. That's the way I remember it being presented during the Test Day...and there's still no reboot option in GNOME 3 as of right now.
You may have banged your head on the desk, but you don't appear to have actually replied and provided correct information, whatever that may be; I don't see a single post from you in that thread. I don't actually see a post from anyone on the desktop or GNOME teams.
It's also not easy to find the correct information. People who have issues with GNOME 3 design are generally referred to gnome3.org, or the FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/FAQ , or the design whiteboards at http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards ; I've been looking through all this stuff for ten minutes and I can't find anything that accurately reflects the current actual status of the shutdown/restart/suspend design. The document on this - http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/SystemStopRestart - refers explicitly to a 'Restart' option which does not exist in my up-to-date F15 system. So what *is* the party line here, anyway?
I'm not paid to work on the desktop, by the way. I'm paid to test stuff, or rather, to facilitate community testing of stuff. As far as that goes, I will work professionally to ensure that we do as much as we can to test that GNOME 3 does what it's designed to do. But *personally*, I'm just a GNOME user - a longstanding GNOME user - who is, like many other GNOME users, rather frustrated by a lot of the design choices made in GNOME 3, which seem to target a potential audience whose chances of materializing are at best dubious, in preference to the audience of real, existing GNOME users. I perfectly understand the different possible positions on this, but I assert my right to represent mine. I'm raising my personal issues here, I'm not representing Red Hat or Fedora QA.
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 20:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Not all, and it's not about any particular opinion. The dearth of information among some of you, not all of you, is the problem. In your specific case, it would be really helpful if you would at least /join #gnome-shell and #gnome-design so that you can answer some of the stuff that comes up on the -test list from an informed position.
I can hardly be expected to follow the IRC channel for every downstream project that ships in Fedora. I'm in too many and don't have time to
er...upstream. :)
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 20:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I did ask you to correct me if I was wrong...but I'm not sure I was. That's the way I remember it being presented during the Test Day...and there's still no reboot option in GNOME 3 as of right now.
You may have banged your head on the desk, but you don't appear to have actually replied and provided correct information, whatever that may be; I don't see a single post from you in that thread. I don't actually see a post from anyone on the desktop or GNOME teams.
Damn, stupid mailing lists; I forgot it was a cross-posted thread and Bastien followed up on this list.
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 20:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 20:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I did ask you to correct me if I was wrong...but I'm not sure I was. That's the way I remember it being presented during the Test Day...and there's still no reboot option in GNOME 3 as of right now.
You may have banged your head on the desk, but you don't appear to have actually replied and provided correct information, whatever that may be; I don't see a single post from you in that thread. I don't actually see a post from anyone on the desktop or GNOME teams.
Damn, stupid mailing lists; I forgot it was a cross-posted thread and Bastien followed up on this list.
It wasn't cross-posted. You even mentioned you didn't like cross-posting in your answer to me. And I mentioned using the upstream IRC channels, or poking someone on #fedora-desktop on GIMPNet.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 22:32, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
We're trying really hard to stay on message and keep people in the wider community informed and then I see threads like this http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-February/097081.html
where a Red Hat employee *paid* to work on the desktop somehow manages to throw factually inaccurate gasoline on an already burning fire. It's really disheartening.
I actually banged my head on my desk when you did that.
I did ask you to correct me if I was wrong...but I'm not sure I was. That's the way I remember it being presented during the Test Day...and there's still no reboot option in GNOME 3 as of right now.
You may have banged your head on the desk, but you don't appear to have actually replied and provided correct information, whatever that may be; I don't see a single post from you in that thread. I don't actually see a post from anyone on the desktop or GNOME teams.
I saw the flurry of frantic IRC conversations among your coworkers scrambling to figure out which one of them was going to set you straight. That's the only reason I was made aware of the thread.
It's also not easy to find the correct information. People who have issues with GNOME 3 design are generally referred to gnome3.org, or the FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/FAQ , or the design whiteboards at http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards ; I've been looking through all this stuff for ten minutes and I can't find anything that accurately reflects the current actual status of the shutdown/restart/suspend design. The document on this - http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/SystemStopRestart - refers explicitly to a 'Restart' option which does not exist in my up-to-date F15 system. So what *is* the party line here, anyway?
What I hope you would take away from my admonishment and suggestion is only the suggestion component: lurk on the IRC channel so you can pop over and ask *before* you respond. Often times, the discussion to come up with the right response is itself informative.
I'm not paid to work on the desktop, by the way. I'm paid to test stuff,
or rather, to facilitate community testing of stuff. As far as that goes, I will work professionally to ensure that we do as much as we can to test that GNOME 3 does what it's designed to do. But *personally*, I'm just a GNOME user - a longstanding GNOME user - who is, like many other GNOME users, rather frustrated by a lot of the design choices made in GNOME 3, which seem to target a potential audience whose chances of materializing are at best dubious, in preference to the audience of real, existing GNOME users. I perfectly understand the different possible positions on this, but I assert my right to represent mine. I'm raising my personal issues here, I'm not representing Red Hat or Fedora QA.
Sure. And I understand that. But I think you might feel differently if you had a chance to get a more nuanced answer from the decision makers involved in an interactive forum like IRC and then you could, perhaps, pass along that nuanced position more effectively.
You *are* doing a good job as evidenced by the vast majority of the messages that you send to test@ but I hope that you see that I'm suggesting a subtle change in your work flow that might, at least, make the F15 release go slightly better.
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 22:44 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
It's also not easy to find the correct information. People who have issues with GNOME 3 design are generally referred to gnome3.org, or the FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/FAQ , or the design whiteboards at http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards ; I've been looking through all this stuff for ten minutes and I can't find anything that accurately reflects the current actual status of the shutdown/restart/suspend design. The document on this - http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/SystemStopRestart - refers explicitly to a 'Restart' option which does not exist in my up-to-date F15 system. So what *is* the party line here, anyway?
What I hope you would take away from my admonishment and suggestion is only the suggestion component: lurk on the IRC channel so you can pop over and ask *before* you respond. Often times, the discussion to come up with the right response is itself informative.
Um. I'm sorry, but are you really telling me the answer to my question is 'ignore everything on our many official web sites and ask on IRC'? And you're giving me advice on *my* workflow?
Sure. And I understand that. But I think you might feel differently if you had a chance to get a more nuanced answer from the decision makers involved in an interactive forum like IRC and then you could, perhaps, pass along that nuanced position more effectively.
You *are* doing a good job as evidenced by the vast majority of the messages that you send to test@ but I hope that you see that I'm suggesting a subtle change in your work flow that might, at least, make the F15 release go slightly better.
I do see that, yes. I hope you're also seeing the issues I'm highlighting in your workflows.
On 02/28/2011 08:34 AM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
I must say I'm weary and flabbergasted that I am once again facilitating communication between Red Hat employees. Please refer to the names in the linked design document. Maybe you guys could even reserve a conference room, resort to fisticuffs and let the rest of us know how it all turned out.
I'm just an increasingly weary volunteer on the GNOME Marketing Team... don't shoot the messenger.
You are painting this problem as merely a internal communication issue within one organization while seemingly overlooking the fact that it is a large organization and not everyone is sitting in the same office or part of the same team. However the problem is much larger and affects GNOME on the whole. There is a lack of communication from GNOME towards users and the broader community on the rationale behind some of the changes (regardless of whether this change originates from Red Hat developers or not) and that can be solved by documenting the expected workflow. This would help some of the more seasoned users (Adam here for instance) gather the information and convey that to other end users. If users are expected to hang out in the right IRC channels, then we definitely have problems (timezone differences make it impossible or atleast inconvenient for a lot of people). KDE 4 launch already has shown us what could go wrong. If I was part of GNOME marketing, I would put all my energy into avoiding a repeat.
Rahul
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 19:01 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 20:46 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
The native DPI of one of my laptops is 221 (Sony Vaio P) and the other is 140 (Vaio Z). Needless to say, 11pt at 96dpi looks fairly uselessly tiny on both. Assuming 96dpi seems rather the contrary of all the other design decisions in GNOME 3 - assuming brokenness and accommodating it, rather than 'doing the right thing' for the long term.
And what do you have the X server report when you plug said laptops in to external monitors or projectors? It's not even remotely a trivial problem to solve...
How about defaulting to 96dpi when you don't know any better, rather than all the time?
How about you don't make assumptions on how the code is written, when it's not written this way?
http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/data/org.gnome.settin... and: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/plugins/xsettings/gsd...
So if you didn't much about with the default configuration (or inherited it from a GNOME 2.x installation), we use the X server's DPI.
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 09:37 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
How about you don't make assumptions on how the code is written, when it's not written this way?
http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/data/org.gnome.settin... and: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/plugins/xsettings/gsd...
So if you didn't much about with the default configuration (or inherited it from a GNOME 2.x installation), we use the X server's DPI.
ack. so it's X's decision to default to 96dpi now? Because that's certainly what happens; I boot F15 on my P and I get almost literally unreadable font sizes.
Adam Williamson (awilliam@redhat.com) said:
http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/data/org.gnome.settin... and: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/plugins/xsettings/gsd...
So if you didn't much about with the default configuration (or inherited it from a GNOME 2.x installation), we use the X server's DPI.
ack. so it's X's decision to default to 96dpi now? Because that's certainly what happens; I boot F15 on my P and I get almost literally unreadable font sizes.
I don't know about 'now'... just did a brief test on a variety of machines here running both older and newer OSes, and it defaults to 96dpi on all of them (and all of them have EDIDs with geometry.)
Bill
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 11:44 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Williamson (awilliam@redhat.com) said:
http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/data/org.gnome.settin... and: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/plugins/xsettings/gsd...
So if you didn't much about with the default configuration (or inherited it from a GNOME 2.x installation), we use the X server's DPI.
ack. so it's X's decision to default to 96dpi now? Because that's certainly what happens; I boot F15 on my P and I get almost literally unreadable font sizes.
I don't know about 'now'... just did a brief test on a variety of machines here running both older and newer OSes, and it defaults to 96dpi on all of them (and all of them have EDIDs with geometry.)
Hmm. I'm sure it used to use auto-detect. The lack of a setting for it is still a bugbear for me, but not really a serious one - I acknowledge that the number of people who are going to know that they ought to set the DPI, and know what to set it to, is small, and most such people can do it with dconf anyway.
(I still think we should consider using auto-detected DPI by default, though. Laptops are increasingly coming with displays featuring significantly higher than 96dpi resolution; I'm wondering when the first 2k LCDs will hit.)
On 28 February 2011 16:52, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
I don't know about 'now'... just did a brief test on a variety of machines here running both older and newer OSes, and it defaults to 96dpi on all of them (and all of them have EDIDs with geometry.)
Hmm. I'm sure it used to use auto-detect. The lack of a setting for it is still a bugbear for me, but not really a serious one - I acknowledge that the number of people who are going to know that they ought to set the DPI, and know what to set it to, is small, and most such people can do it with dconf anyway.
(I still think we should consider using auto-detected DPI by default, though. Laptops are increasingly coming with displays featuring significantly higher than 96dpi resolution; I'm wondering when the first 2k LCDs will hit.)
I think the X driver sets that value. Here on my laptop it just always does this:
[ 26.302] (==) intel(0): DPI set to (96, 96)
Regardless if I have my external display connected as well as the laptop's LCD or not.
Rui
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 08:52 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 11:44 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Williamson (awilliam@redhat.com) said:
http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/data/org.gnome.settin... and: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/tree/plugins/xsettings/gsd...
So if you didn't much about with the default configuration (or inherited it from a GNOME 2.x installation), we use the X server's DPI.
ack. so it's X's decision to default to 96dpi now? Because that's certainly what happens; I boot F15 on my P and I get almost literally unreadable font sizes.
I don't know about 'now'... just did a brief test on a variety of machines here running both older and newer OSes, and it defaults to 96dpi on all of them (and all of them have EDIDs with geometry.)
Hmm. I'm sure it used to use auto-detect. The lack of a setting for it is still a bugbear for me, but not really a serious one - I acknowledge that the number of people who are going to know that they ought to set the DPI, and know what to set it to, is small, and most such people can do it with dconf anyway.
(I still think we should consider using auto-detected DPI by default,
Which is what it does (to the best of its abilities).
though. Laptops are increasingly coming with displays featuring significantly higher than 96dpi resolution; I'm wondering when the first 2k LCDs will hit.)
You can increase the DPI of the screen in "Universal Access" -> "Larger text".
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:25 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
(I still think we should consider using auto-detected DPI by default,
Which is what it does (to the best of its abilities).
When you say 'it' - GNOME? X?
though. Laptops are increasingly coming with displays featuring significantly higher than 96dpi resolution; I'm wondering when the first 2k LCDs will hit.)
You can increase the DPI of the screen in "Universal Access" -> "Larger text".
I think it's been pointed out before that this isn't a very discoverable place for it to be, if you're coming from the perspective of 'my screen has a high pixel density' rather than 'my eyesight isn't what it used to be'.
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 09:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:25 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
(I still think we should consider using auto-detected DPI by default,
Which is what it does (to the best of its abilities).
When you say 'it' - GNOME? X?
GNOME, I even gave you links to the code.
though. Laptops are increasingly coming with displays featuring significantly higher than 96dpi resolution; I'm wondering when the first 2k LCDs will hit.)
You can increase the DPI of the screen in "Universal Access" -> "Larger text".
I think it's been pointed out before that this isn't a very discoverable place for it to be, if you're coming from the perspective of 'my screen has a high pixel density' rather than 'my eyesight isn't what it used to be'. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:46 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 09:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:25 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
(I still think we should consider using auto-detected DPI by default,
Which is what it does (to the best of its abilities).
When you say 'it' - GNOME? X?
GNOME, I even gave you links to the code.
Sure, I wasn't sure if we were still talking about the same thing, though. =) As mentioned in the other follow-up, by 'we' I'm now talking about Fedora / free software in general - the place where 96dpi is mandated appears to be X.
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 09:58 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:46 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 09:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:25 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
(I still think we should consider using auto-detected DPI by default,
Which is what it does (to the best of its abilities).
When you say 'it' - GNOME? X?
GNOME, I even gave you links to the code.
Sure, I wasn't sure if we were still talking about the same thing, though. =) As mentioned in the other follow-up, by 'we' I'm now talking about Fedora / free software in general - the place where 96dpi is mandated appears to be X.
You're more than welcome switching your DPI manually: gsettings set org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.xsettings dpi 140
on your Vaio, and filing a bug about X.org.
There's nothing we can help with here. If we start breaking things, maybe people will fix the backend of it :)
Bastien Nocera (bnocera@redhat.com) said:
though. Laptops are increasingly coming with displays featuring significantly higher than 96dpi resolution; I'm wondering when the first 2k LCDs will hit.)
You can increase the DPI of the screen in "Universal Access" -> "Larger text".
I must be weird, in that I have a > 96 dpi screen, and I want the default fonts *smaller*.
Then again, 140dpi on a laptop at typing distance is different from 140dpi on a on-desk monitor, in terms of the relative visual height of text. And without assuming everyone has a webcam, we're not going to auto-adjust for viewing distance any time soon.
Bill
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 14:02 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Bastien Nocera (bnocera@redhat.com) said:
though. Laptops are increasingly coming with displays featuring significantly higher than 96dpi resolution; I'm wondering when the first 2k LCDs will hit.)
You can increase the DPI of the screen in "Universal Access" -> "Larger text".
I must be weird, in that I have a > 96 dpi screen, and I want the default fonts *smaller*.
I wanted them smaller too, and the code to do that is in git now (after the nice designer mentioned the use case for it, and filed a bug).
Then again, 140dpi on a laptop at typing distance is different from 140dpi on a on-desk monitor, in terms of the relative visual height of text. And without assuming everyone has a webcam, we're not going to auto-adjust for viewing distance any time soon.
Bill
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 14:02 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Bastien Nocera (bnocera@redhat.com) said:
though. Laptops are increasingly coming with displays featuring significantly higher than 96dpi resolution; I'm wondering when the first 2k LCDs will hit.)
You can increase the DPI of the screen in "Universal Access" -> "Larger text".
I must be weird, in that I have a > 96 dpi screen, and I want the default fonts *smaller*.
Then again, 140dpi on a laptop at typing distance is different from 140dpi on a on-desk monitor, in terms of the relative visual height of text. And without assuming everyone has a webcam, we're not going to auto-adjust for viewing distance any time soon.
I'd argue that you should always set the correct DPI, and then adjust the font point size to adjust the final display to your subjective preferences. Strictly understood, the DPI setting doesn't have any subjectivity to it; there is a single correct value which causes any given font point size to render at the actual physical size it's supposed to be. You're supposed to use the ability to change the font point size to adjust for your personal preference, not the DPI setting. Reality fails to live up to my strict standards in various ways, but damnit, that's reality's fault. =)
(this is how I do it on the Vaio P, btw - size 11 fonts at 220dpi actually look ridiculous on it, but I still set the DPI to 220, and then set my preferred font size to be 7 or 8, which gives the appearance I'm happy with.)
You folks are working hard on this, and there's little value in me sitting on the sidelines with complaints you're not interested in hearing. So I'll limit myself to one little thing:
There's two really specific cases where having yet-another-control-panel-applet is not good: discovery of the settings that users *should* want to change and, in the support side of things, users who change the font, don't know what they've done, and then have to call to $linux_savvy_family_member or $corporate_IT_help_desk.
Do you understand how condescending and arrogant that sounds? I honestly believe that's not your intent, but that's what comes across. It will not endear you to users who have their own idea of what they "*should* want to change."
Thanks,
jon
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 08:03, Jonathan Corbet corbet-ft@lwn.net wrote:
yet-another-control-panel-applet is not good: discovery of the settings
that
users *should* want to change and, in the support side of things, users
who
change the font, don't know what they've done, and then have to call to $linux_savvy_family_member or $corporate_IT_help_desk.
There's two really specific cases where having
Do you understand how condescending and arrogant that sounds? I honestly believe that's not your intent, but that's what comes across. It will not endear you to users who have their own idea of what they "*should* want to change."
No, I don't. Maybe I'm tone deaf.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 08:03, Jonathan Corbet corbet-ft@lwn.net wrote:
You folks are working hard on this, and there's little value in me sitting on the sidelines with complaints you're not interested in hearing.
I pinged the design team this morning and they agreed that making the default font size larger without giving a UI element to move it back is something which needs a remedy. Jon McCann opened a bug here; from the tenor of the discussion my guess would be that it will make it before 3.0 is released:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:58:06 -0600 "Jason D. Clinton" me@jasonclinton.com wrote:
I pinged the design team this morning and they agreed that making the default font size larger without giving a UI element to move it back is something which needs a remedy. Jon McCann opened a bug here; from the tenor of the discussion my guess would be that it will make it before 3.0 is released:
That is good news - thanks! Makes sitting here in the airport (two hours delay and counting) a little more tolerable...
jon
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Jonathan Corbet corbet-ft@lwn.net wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:58:06 -0600 "Jason D. Clinton" me@jasonclinton.com wrote:
I pinged the design team this morning and they agreed that making the default font size larger without giving a UI element to move it back is something which needs a remedy. Jon McCann opened a bug here; from the tenor of the discussion my guess would be that it will make it before 3.0 is released:
That is good news - thanks! Makes sitting here in the airport (two hours delay and counting) a little more tolerable...
FYI Bastien already implemented it upstream and closed the bug ;)
On 02/28/2011 01:06 AM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
We think that we are making the right decisions and that, hopefully, you'll finally be able to put a GNOME computer in front of a normal person and not have them run away kicking and screaming. Maybe 3.0 won't quite be there yet but we're on the right path, anyway.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that Gnome has not been presentable/usable to/by normal people?
If you are wondering why Desktop on Linux regardless of what that is and what's it called has not reached it potential yet the answer to that is very simple it is not available in stores for that novice end user aka normal user as an option on the hardware to purchase and the necessary funds for successful marketing campaign.
Normal users aren't capable of installing their own operating system they buy hardware with them preinstalled :-)
For several release cycles I've successfully "migrated" many novice end users from other OS to Fedora and the Gnome desktop environment and I'm not only talking about the regular novice end user but the toughest crowd of them all old people.
Once they got over the mental block and the learning curve which comes strictly with the switch to a new environment and happens regardless of other OS and or if they are switching between other *DE that exist on GNU/Linux which by the way they will experience with the move from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 they have effectively become happy Gnome users and up to this point in time none of them have wanted to switch back to their previous OS and in my books that's what I call a good usability experience.
There are 4 things I have noticed "normal" users all have common issue they complain about.
1. The "Other" in GDM.
This confuses them and to be honest does not belong on a home desktop installation which will have max 4 account given the highly unlikely scenario that family with 2 children are sharing the same computer and each of the family members have separated accounts on that computer. ( It should be hidden for the end user, admins can always enable it for large instalments which are authenticating against ldap or some other central account system ).
2. The constant rearrangement/change in usability.
This presented it self when end users had just learned the menu layout in Application, Places and System and then the Gnome Desktop team decided to tidy/clean the menu layout which resulted in the end users to re-familiarize themselves with that structure.
That particular problem already has been eliminated in Gnome 3 with the removal of menus and the introduction of "Application" the "Favourite bar" which I believe will become huge success amongst novice end users that use limited set of application ( web browser,email application. photo application along with office application ).
3. Adding/removing applications
This end users experience is currently being worked on by Gnome Developers. ( I'm talking about here add/remove applications )
It has been a huge success with end users double clicking a file which they did not have an application to open it with that the package manager offers to install an application that does open those files for them.
4. Workspaces
They never used it and have accidental switched to the second workspace and thought they have lost what they were currently working on.
I propose that you default to Workspaces "Off" and add the ability to enable them in "My account" or "System settings" for those that actually use it like myself.
After doing fresh RC2 alpha install this morning and updating, the usage experience went from good to worse I now have huge application icons in "Applications" and weird scroll down bar probably as a result of that. (Resolution Bug? )
I propose a change into that behaviour into a more modern one remove the "Favourites bar ( users can still add application to it by right clicking and choose add to favourites ) " and implement swipe left/right or arrow left righ or move mouse to the left and right edge of the screen to switch between categories and or set of applications as opposed to some scroll down experience at least should look into how they are resolving that in smartphone/tablet PC and adapt a similar behaviour.
I also propose that when a user logs in he logs directly into "Activites" since he cant do anything in the current logged in scenario ( eliminates the step having to click activites to start working ).
You might want to at least default adding "Files" to the favourites bar unless there is something else suppose to replace "Computer" and "Users Home"
It would be good to know if and how you are going to replace that usage?
I also propose that you expose various Gnome tweaking settings in the "Administrator" accounts to keep the experienced/advanced users happy that should work as a fairly good compromise between novice users and experienced/advanced users.
You do realize that the experienced/advanced users are the only one capable of installing Gnome on their computer and start using it right :-)
JBG
2011/2/28 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@gmail.com
Once they got over the mental block and the learning curve which comes strictly with the switch to a new environment
Do you honestly believe that something like iOS and Android would have the astronomical growth that they have if new customers just had to "get over the mental block and the learning curve?" No, they're awesome. And when we're awesome, we'll have astronomical growth too. And that means no mental block and no (appreciable) learning curve.
Today, computers suck.
On 02/28/2011 03:24 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
Do you honestly believe that something like iOS and Android would have the astronomical growth that they have if new customers just had to "get over the mental block and the learning curve?" No, they're awesome. And when we're awesome, we'll have astronomical growth too. And that means no mental block and no (appreciable) learning curve.
FYI IOS and Android all come preinstalled on devices ready for the novices end user to use, so please dont confuse "usability" with "availability" and "Linux on Desktop" wont become commonly widely used until that novice end user can walk into a store and buy it.
Today, computers suck.
I'm not following you here in which way the computer sucks?
Desktop in it's sense is slowly migrating into smartphones and into the "cloud" which will serve majority of regular computer usage on the planet and that's a computer you carry around with you at all time in your pocket and you simply "dock" to hook it up to a keyboard mouse and additional larger display and a continues power source...
That's happening right here right now and the battle is being fought between Apple IOS and Android and the traditional desktop in the sense as we know it, is dying....
JBG
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org