I'm posting this question to both the developer's and user's list. Everybody's thoughts and comments are welcomed.
Bug report 676 (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=676) was submitted requesting that the default window placement be changed from "Smart" to Centered. A patch was provided to make that change.
What do you think?
The configuration option for window placement is found in Control Center, Desktop, Window Behavior, Moving tab.
Please keep the conversation focused to the DEFAULT setting and not what you prefer. The default setting is used when a person uses Trinity for the first time and is still learning to use the desktop. For a default setting, keep in mind new users, users migrating from Windows, traditional window placement, user expectations, newbies, etc.
This discussion is not about the merits of either option but which is best as a default for new users.
Please --- if you don't know what the "Smart" option does, then don't speculate. :)
Thanks much for your time!
Darrell
On Friday 13 January 2012 03:08:34 pm Darrell Anderson wrote:
I'm posting this question to both the developer's and user's list. Everybody's thoughts and comments are welcomed.
Bug report 676 (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=676) was submitted requesting that the default window placement be changed from "Smart" to Centered. A patch was provided to make that change.
What do you think?
Leave it the way it is. What it is now works and if the user whats something else she/he is free to change it.
The configuration option for window placement is found in Control Center, Desktop, Window Behavior, Moving tab.
Please keep the conversation focused to the DEFAULT setting and not what you prefer. The default setting is used when a person uses Trinity for the first time and is still learning to use the desktop. For a default setting, keep in mind new users, users migrating from Windows, traditional window placement, user expectations, newbies, etc.
I really don't care about migrating windows users. They need to get with the band wagon. Do not change GNU/Linux/trinity into be a "free windows". I don't understand all of this GNU/Linux has to work like windows. GNU/Linux is well GNU/Linux and windows is....well junk. A glorified games/virus lanuching platform. It that is what windows users wants, that's fine. I use GNU/Linux because I want GNU/Linux and not windows.
This discussion is not about the merits of either option but which is best as a default for new users.
Please --- if you don't know what the "Smart" option does, then don't speculate. :)
Thanks much for your time!
Darrell
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On Friday 13 January 2012 12:08:34 Darrell Anderson wrote:
I'm posting this question to both the developer's and user's list. Everybody's thoughts and comments are welcomed.
Bug report 676 (http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=676) was submitted requesting that the default window placement be changed from "Smart" to Centered. A patch was provided to make that change.
What do you think?
do you understand what this option does? Do you understand how this will affect all users?
This is clearly a case of "we change the window manager without understanding how the window manager works". Please just stop your work on twin and just use the upstream KWin. We very well evaluate what are good options and we know how such a change would affect all users.
You have so much work to do, why spend it on discussing a default setting for a window manager? Just use what upstream does.
Kind Regards Martin Gräßlin
KWin maintainer
This is clearly a case of "we change the window manager without understanding how the window manager works". Please just stop your work on twin and just use the upstream KWin. We very well evaluate what are good options and we know how such a change would affect all users.
You have so much work to do, why spend it on discussing a default setting for a window manager? Just use what upstream does.
The choice of which window manager to use in any operating system has nothing to do with what the default placement option should be.
I mentioned in my original post that the question has nothing to do with the merits of either choice. I also mentioned that my focus is not on what current Trinity users prefer but on what the default placement option should be for new users.
So far several people have voiced their preference but nobody is sharing usability reasons for their choice. My question is focused toward new users, not experienced users. I suspect most of the responders thus far are experienced users and missed that point.
The question is not "clearly a case" of what you described. The question has nothing to do with the technical aspects of window management. The question is focused narrowly on what should be the default placement option when Trinity is initially installed. The question is focused on usability for new Trinity users and has nothing to do with the technical challenges of window placement design.
I would be grateful if you can point us to some usability studies regarding this issue.
Darrell
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:41:58 -0800 (PST) Darrell Anderson humanreadable@yahoo.com wrote:
This is clearly a case of "we change the window manager without understanding how the window manager works". Please just stop your work on twin and just use the upstream KWin. We very well evaluate what are good options and we know how such a change would affect all users.
You have so much work to do, why spend it on discussing a default setting for a window manager? Just use what upstream does.
The choice of which window manager to use in any operating system has nothing to do with what the default placement option should be.
I mentioned in my original post that the question has nothing to do with the merits of either choice. I also mentioned that my focus is not on what current Trinity users prefer but on what the default placement option should be for new users.
So far several people have voiced their preference but nobody is sharing usability reasons for their choice. My question is focused toward new users, not experienced users. I suspect most of the responders thus far are experienced users and missed that point.
The question is not "clearly a case" of what you described. The question has nothing to do with the technical aspects of window management. The question is focused narrowly on what should be the default placement option when Trinity is initially installed. The question is focused on usability for new Trinity users and has nothing to do with the technical challenges of window placement design.
I would be grateful if you can point us to some usability studies regarding this issue.
I think this should be a good guideline for bikeshed trolls: -KDE developers were right, -KDE developers were right, -KDE developers were right. They probably already trolled themselves when deciding of such things and we, having forked KDE3, benefit of KDE 3.5.10 of which the bikeshed is already painted. Let's not repaint it and make useful things instead.
Furthermore, KDE3 and Trinity never gonna be Windows, so we have a choice between -not changing anything, former KDE3 users are familiar with the behaviour and newcomers will have to adapt -re-paint the bikeshed, and confuse both former KDE3 users and newcomers so the decision seems obvious to me.
Darrell
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On Saturday 14 January 2012 10:41:58 Darrell Anderson wrote:
I mentioned in my original post that the question has nothing to do with the merits of either choice. I also mentioned that my focus is not on what current Trinity users prefer but on what the default placement option should be for new users.
and I only answered to that.
So far several people have voiced their preference but nobody is sharing usability reasons for their choice. My question is focused toward new users, not experienced users. I suspect most of the responders thus far are experienced users and missed that point.
ok. I cannot give you usability studies, because they don't exist. But you can try it yourself. Just use it! Just try this setting for a day or two. Give it to a non-experienced user.
The question is not "clearly a case" of what you described. The question has nothing to do with the technical aspects of window management. The question is focused narrowly on what should be the default placement option when Trinity is initially installed. The question is focused on usability for new Trinity users and has nothing to do with the technical challenges of window placement design.
Of course it has to do with technical aspects of the window manager. You can only choose a default if you understand it. If you understand every detail of it. If you know and understand the underlying code and the history behind it.
If you just had looked into the code, if you had tracked down why it is the default, you would not even have come up with the proposal.
Just to give you an idea. The placement policy centered was not always called centered. It was committed as "StupidlyCentered". It did not even had a GUI option, because it is so stupid. It is from 2002 and has not changed at all, the code is still the same (except an internal adjustment).
Seriously? Do you want to use that as the default?
I would be grateful if you can point us to some usability studies regarding this issue.
The usability study for placement policy smart might be that it was used in KWM and based on code from an even older window manager. Maybe 15 years of experience in good window placement are an argument, maybe not.
You can spend your time on discussing each config option of KDE which have not changed in the last 12 years. All is fine with that. But I can only recommend you to concentrate on what is important. The KDE devs are not all stupid and for most of the defaults there are good reasons.
And even if you come up with a new default I can only suggest that you go afterwards to the maintainers of the specific KDE application and ask why they had the default and not the one you use. There might be very good reasons to not use your default. Remember: you did not develop the applications, you don't know the limitations!
In this case here the maintainer of the specific application tells you even before that it is a bad idea to change the default.
Kind Regards Martin Gräßlin
ok. I cannot give you usability studies, because they don't exist. But you can try it yourself. Just use it! Just try this setting for a day or two. Give it to a non-experienced user.
I have tried Smart placement. I don't like the placement scheme. :)
I have been using computers since 1977. I'm not a newbie. :) Old fashioned? Sometimes. Older than most users today? For sure. Cranky? Sometimes. But newbie? Not even close. :)
Having been around computers for so long, and usually being the local "go to" computer person where ever I go, I have learned a thing or two about usability. I won't claim to be a subject matter expert, but I have observed more than most people using computers today. I know that for each option provided, in any interface, for any tool, some people will like one option and some will like another. That is the way humans are wired. Some people like Smart placement. Some people like Centered. Some like the other options. That does not make one option "right" or "wrong." Only different. Good software design provides options. Good developers provide options and let the users decide.
Most of my usability observations have taken place where the other users are not computer savvy. These people are intelligent and wonderful but are not close to being classic computer "geeks." I have observed that among software developers their observations about usability more often than not are limited to fellow geeks and not every day users.
I can say with confidence that quite often what is "cool" to a "geek" is not cool to every day users. I have observed this often.
Computer savvy users --- geeks in common parlance, are wired differently than every day computer users. Much like "motorheads" are wired differently than every day users of automobiles.
That you offer no usability studies related to this specific topic means we are limited to opinions. I can live with that.
Of course it has to do with technical aspects of the window manager. You can only choose a default if you understand it. If you understand every detail of it. If you know and understand the underlying code and the history behind it.
The original poll question has nothing to do with the technical aspects of each placement option. The poll question is about usability, of which you provide no related studies.
As I mentioned in the bugzilla, I can see from the code (I can read C++ but am not a C++ hacker --- I'm teaching myself as we speak) that a lot of sweat equity went into the thought and design of Smart placement. Having hacked lots of code myself, I appreciate the effort behind the work.
With that said, for you to tell me I can choose a default only if I understand the technical aspects is condescending. I need only to use the options to decide what I like or don't like.
I never argued that Smart placement should be removed. More than once I emphasized that this discussion is not about the merits of each option, but only about which option should be the default for the initial installation. Users can change the option after the initial installation, but what should the default be? As you offer no usability studies about the topic, then as I said, we all are limited to opinions only. Fair enough. Just don't "talk down" to people about their choices.
If you just had looked into the code, if you had tracked down why it is the default, you would not even have come up with the proposal.
Condescending opinion.
Just to give you an idea. The placement policy centered was not always called centered. It was committed as "StupidlyCentered". It did not even had a GUI option, because it is so stupid. It is from 2002 and has not changed at all, the code is still the same (except an internal adjustment).
I never have been impressed with these types of developers' attitudes.
I don't care that the Centered option has remain unchanged since 2002. I have tools, appliances, and furniture in my house that are --- I'm guessing here --- older than you. My pickup truck is 23 years old and runs like a top. Does that make any of those objects "stupid"?
A hammer is a tool that is simple in design and has remained unchanged since its invention. Is the hammer stupid because the design is simple?
To name a window placement option "StupidlyCentered" is an indication of a condescending "we know better than you" attitude.
An example of this "we know better" attitude is the work I did a while ago to restore some options to the Konqueror web link context menu. Despite user requests years ago not to change the menu, the menu options never were restored because the developer "knew what was best." I restored those options.
Another example of this condescending attitude are some usability options I restored to Kate. The original options were called "useless crap" by the developer and removed. Those comments remain in the original patch commit. I restored that "useless crap."
My point with these examples is for you to claim you know what is best for me or other users is like holding water with a sieve. You have no standing to decide what is best for me or anybody other user.
Seriously? Do you want to use that as the default?
Yes I do. You haven't figured that out yet?
Tim and I started this discussion in the bugzilla. As much as I want Centered, er, StupidlyCentered, I am not so arrogant to think others want that option as the default. I wrote a patch to change the default. So I have sweat equity involved in this discussion. Perhaps a little pride too because I am not a full fledged C++ coder.
I might get out-voted and Smart will remain the default option for new installations. Therefore in the bugzilla I proposed an alternate method to change the global default for new installations without patching code. That is one of the attractive elements I like about the Trinity project. We don't see things here as "my way or the highway" or "either or." We don't pretend to "know better." We see all options as being viable and we try to work with everybody.
The usability study for placement policy smart might be that it was used in KWM and based on code from an even older window manager. Maybe 15 years of experience in good window placement are an argument, maybe not.
Okay. Opinion, not facts.
You can spend your time on discussing each config option of KDE which have not changed in the last 12 years. All is fine with that. But I can only recommend you to concentrate on what is important. The KDE devs are not all stupid and for most of the defaults there are good reasons.
I never intimated that the KDE developers were stupid. I always thought they were incredibly smart and talented. Yet as I mentioned previously, what a geek thinks is usable often contradicts what every day users think is usable.
And even if you come up with a new default I can only suggest that you go afterwards to the maintainers of the specific KDE application and ask why they had the default and not the one you use. There might be very good reasons to not use your default. Remember: you did not develop the applications, you don't know the limitations!
There might be some usability reasons, but as you have not provided any related studies, I am left to think the underlying reason is ego and what some geeks thought was cool.
Darrell
On Sunday 15 January 2012 13:06:09 Darrell Anderson wrote:
ok. I cannot give you usability studies, because they don't exist. But you can try it yourself. Just use it! Just try this setting for a day or two. Give it to a non-experienced user.
I have tried Smart placement. I don't like the placement scheme. :)
so please take a step back and remove your personal opinion. Finding defaults is not about what you consider the best option for you but for what is the best option for the users. Think about the fact that I argue here for an option in a software I don't use. In fact about a software which I could consider as a hostile fork of the software I develop.
Personally I have written quite some code which is used as default but which I don't use. Quite strange, isn't it? I and other developers are able to step outside and think what is good for users to be the default and tailor the system in a way that it works good for users who don't want to touch any settings.
Nevertheless we offer the possibility to change the sane defaults to something else for advanced users like yourself so that you can use e.g. a centered placement strategy.
I can say with confidence that quite often what is "cool" to a "geek" is not cool to every day users. I have observed this often.
I quite agree. That's why centered is *not* a useful placement strategy. It requires users to move their windows to have it useable. This is the worst thing which could happen.
Users should not notice that there is something that places windows. But with centered they notice, because the system does not act in the way it should act.
That you offer no usability studies related to this specific topic means we are limited to opinions. I can live with that.
No we aren't limited to opinions. I can give you the experience of several years of developing and maintaining a window manager. I know quite a bit about window management and what are good options. You mentioned you watch people using their computer. I watch people interacting with the window manager. I don't look at anything else except the window management.
Furthermore I have the complete confidence of our bug tracking software. We have millions of users reporting hundred of bug reports each year to multiple parts of our window manager. But reports to the placement strategy? Feature requests? Hardly any. I am involved in multiple KDE related support areas watching for window manager related topics: nothing about placement.
I am completely sure that our users are well suited with placment strategy smart as the default. Anything else will harm your userbase.
You can think it's just opinion or accept it as the experience of a younger developer who is expert in this area. You know you can count the world wide maintainers of serious window managers on one hand. There's: * MacOS X * Microsoft Windows * Compiz * Mutter * KWin
Of course it has to do with technical aspects of the window manager. You can only choose a default if you understand it. If you understand every detail of it. If you know and understand the underlying code and the history behind it.
The original poll question has nothing to do with the technical aspects of each placement option. The poll question is about usability, of which you provide no related studies.
The technical limitations have to be considered when changing defaults. This is as important or maybe even more important than useability.
As I mentioned in the bugzilla, I can see from the code (I can read C++ but am not a C++ hacker --- I'm teaching myself as we speak) that a lot of sweat equity went into the thought and design of Smart placement. Having hacked lots of code myself, I appreciate the effort behind the work.
It's not about the complexity of smart, but about the not-developed placment strategy centered.
With that said, for you to tell me I can choose a default only if I understand the technical aspects is condescending. I need only to use the options to decide what I like or don't like.
no, sorry, this is short sighted. What if an option has not been designed to be used as default. If it has known limitiations or even bugs which are just not important enough to be fixed. Developers concentrate on the default options to make them really good. You would expose untested code to your users. And you have nobody to fix it (compare my initiative to use KWin as default).
I never argued that Smart placement should be removed. More than once I emphasized that this discussion is not about the merits of each option, but only about which option should be the default for the initial installation. Users can change the option after the initial installation, but what should the default be? As you offer no usability studies about the topic, then as I said, we all are limited to opinions only. Fair enough. Just don't "talk down" to people about their choices.
see above
If you just had looked into the code, if you had tracked down why it is the default, you would not even have come up with the proposal.
Condescending opinion.
Just to give you an idea. The placement policy centered was not always called centered. It was committed as "StupidlyCentered". It did not even had a GUI option, because it is so stupid. It is from 2002 and has not changed at all, the code is still the same (except an internal adjustment).
I never have been impressed with these types of developers' attitudes.
I don't care that the Centered option has remain unchanged since 2002. I have tools, appliances, and furniture in my house that are --- I'm guessing here --- older than you. My pickup truck is 23 years old and runs like a top. Does that make any of those objects "stupid"?
sorry this completely misses the point. What the name (and commit) tells us is: * the developer who wrote the code, considers the functionality as "stupid" * he himself never touched the code again and improved it * nobody else ever considered to improve the code * looking at the commit where it was introduced it becomes clearly visible that it is example code for the now configurable placement strategy
=> centered has not been developed to be used!
Tim and I started this discussion in the bugzilla. As much as I want Centered, er, StupidlyCentered, I am not so arrogant to think others want that option as the default. I wrote a patch to change the default.
I just looked at the patch, I'm sorry to tell you, but it is completely wrong.
So I have sweat equity involved in this discussion. Perhaps a little pride too because I am not a full fledged C++ coder.
I might get out-voted and Smart will remain the default option for new installations. Therefore in the bugzilla I proposed an alternate method to change the global default for new installations without patching code.
You know that this existed for years? You know that this is the way that distributions use to configure their default settings?
That is one of the attractive elements I like about the Trinity project. We don't see things here as "my way or the highway" or "either or." We don't pretend to "know better." We see all options as being viable and we try to work with everybody.
sorry, what a bullsh*** I cannot tell you how arrogant I find this statement. It's this complete utter non-sense I have seen here more than once on this list and elsewhere with the opinion that KDE developers are all assholes not caring about their users. It's such a stupid thing to think that KDE developers pretend to "know better". Such nonsense makes me really angry and I really have to think about whether I want to continue to offer my help to the Trinity project.
There might be some usability reasons, but as you have not provided any related studies,
There are no studies because studies are very expensive. I would love to have studies on everything. If you have a spare $100000 I happily accept it to do usability studies at the local university for every aspect of the desktop.
I am left to think the underlying reason is ego and what some geeks thought was cool.
*sigh* Ego is never a reason why something is the default. And yes if you write that you consider ego as a reason for defaults, I consider this as an insult (I have not been involved when the default for this option has been set) and are convinced that you consider KDE developers to be stupid as you quite nicely highlighted with various side notes in your mail.
I would appreciate if you could use a constructive manner to discuss and I think you should appoligize towards the KDE developers you insulted in your mail, e.g. the quite nice Kate developers who I know personally.
Kind regards by a rather annoyed KDE developer given the mail he had to read before going to bed.
Martin Gräßlin
Nevertheless we offer the possibility to change the sane defaults to something else for advanced users like yourself so that you can use e.g. a centered placement strategy.
"Sane" according to whom? What might seem "sane" to you is not always "sane" to others.
I quite agree. That's why centered is *not* a useful placement strategy. It requires users to move their windows to have it useable. This is the worst thing which could happen.
Not really. I have used Centered for years. Here is a difference: I configure most apps to open maximized. Those few that I open in non-maximized mode typically get opened for a few moments and then closed. So for me, Centered is useful.
Furthermore I have the complete confidence of our bug tracking software. We have millions of users reporting hundred of bug reports each year to multiple parts of our window manager. But reports to the placement strategy? Feature requests? Hardly any. I am involved in multiple KDE related support areas watching for window manager related topics: nothing about placement.
When people have an option to change a default they do just that. There is no "bug" to report.
sorry, what a bullsh*** I cannot tell you how arrogant I find this statement. It's this complete utter non-sense I have seen here more than once on this list and elsewhere with the opinion that KDE developers are all assholes not caring about their users. It's such a stupid thing to think that KDE developers pretend to "know better". Such nonsense makes me really angry and I really have to think about whether I want to continue to offer my help to the Trinity project.
Where did I write "KDE developers"? I wrote "developers." That you jumped to this conclusion is interesting.
Regarding your help with the Trinity project, please point me to anything that you have contributed. Not to KDE3 but to Trinity.
*sigh* Ego is never a reason why something is the default.
Really? Never?
And yes if you write that you consider ego as a reason for defaults, I consider this as an insult (I have not been involved when the default for this option has been set) and are convinced that you consider KDE developers to be stupid as you quite nicely highlighted with various side notes in your mail.
Where did I call KDE developers stupid? Which side notes? I have disagreed with some of their decisions, but I ask you to show me where I called the people stupid.
I would appreciate if you could use a constructive manner to discuss and I think you should appoligize towards the KDE developers you insulted in your mail, e.g. the quite nice Kate developers who I know personally.
Please show me the insults I made to KDE developers.
Darrell
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:13:51 -0800 (PST) Darrell Anderson humanreadable@yahoo.com wrote:
Nevertheless we offer the possibility to change the sane defaults to something else for advanced users like yourself so that you can use e.g. a centered placement strategy.
"Sane" according to whom? What might seem "sane" to you is not always "sane" to others.
I quite agree. That's why centered is *not* a useful placement strategy. It requires users to move their windows to have it useable. This is the worst thing which could happen.
Not really. I have used Centered for years. Here is a difference: I configure most apps to open maximized. Those few that I open in non-maximized mode typically get opened for a few moments and then closed. So for me, Centered is useful.
You are saying that Centered suits your already non-default way applications open, not the other defaults. Making Centered the default policy, with no maximised-by-default application, would be terrible. That is the real configuration that matters, because it's the one which would be put as default if Tim listened you. Not your personal one.
Furthermore I have the complete confidence of our bug tracking software. We have millions of users reporting hundred of bug reports each year to multiple parts of our window manager. But reports to the placement strategy? Feature requests? Hardly any. I am involved in multiple KDE related support areas watching for window manager related topics: nothing about placement.
When people have an option to change a default they do just that. There is no "bug" to report.
sorry, what a bullsh*** I cannot tell you how arrogant I find this statement. It's this complete utter non-sense I have seen here more than once on this list and elsewhere with the opinion that KDE developers are all assholes not caring about their users. It's such a stupid thing to think that KDE developers pretend to "know better". Such nonsense makes me really angry and I really have to think about whether I want to continue to offer my help to the Trinity project.
Where did I write "KDE developers"? I wrote "developers." That you jumped to this conclusion is interesting.
Regarding your help with the Trinity project, please point me to anything that you have contributed. Not to KDE3 but to Trinity.
*sigh* Ego is never a reason why something is the default.
Really? Never?
And yes if you write that you consider ego as a reason for defaults, I consider this as an insult (I have not been involved when the default for this option has been set) and are convinced that you consider KDE developers to be stupid as you quite nicely highlighted with various side notes in your mail.
Where did I call KDE developers stupid? Which side notes? I have disagreed with some of their decisions, but I ask you to show me where I called the people stupid.
I would appreciate if you could use a constructive manner to discuss and I think you should appoligize towards the KDE developers you insulted in your mail, e.g. the quite nice Kate developers who I know personally.
Please show me the insults I made to KDE developers.
Darrell
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
Not really. I have used Centered for years. Here is a
difference: I
configure most apps to open maximized. Those few that
I open in
non-maximized mode typically get opened for a few
moments and then
closed. So for me, Centered is useful.
You are saying that Centered suits your already non-default way applications open, not the other defaults. Making Centered the default policy, with no maximised-by-default application, would be terrible. That is the real configuration that matters, because it's the one which would be put as default if Tim listened you. Not your personal one.
Yes, and I wrote in a previous response that in the bugzilla I had already proposed to Tim an alternate solution. :)
Darrell
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:13:51 -0800 (PST) Darrell Anderson humanreadable@yahoo.com wrote:
Nevertheless we offer the possibility to change the sane defaults to something else for advanced users like yourself so that you can use e.g. a centered placement strategy.
"Sane" according to whom? What might seem "sane" to you is not always "sane" to others.
I quite agree. That's why centered is *not* a useful placement strategy. It requires users to move their windows to have it useable. This is the worst thing which could happen.
Not really. I have used Centered for years. Here is a difference: I configure most apps to open maximized. Those few that I open in non-maximized mode typically get opened for a few moments and then closed. So for me, Centered is useful.
You are saying that Centered suits your already non-default way applications open, not the other defaults. Making Centered the default policy, with no maximised-by-default application, would be terrible. That is the real configuration that matters, because it's the one which would be put as default if Tim listened you. Not your personal one.
OK all, this thread has gone on long enough. I will not be changing the default setting. I never wanted to change the default, but deferred the final decision to the people on this list. The vote was overwhelming in support of Smart window placement, so that is what will remain as the default.
It never hurts to challenge long-held defaults, but in many cases the challenge merely results in a confirmation of the default setting remaining the same. This is what happened here.
Thank you all for your input!
Tim
Normally I would not reply to a thread after a decision has been done. I do it nevertheless to point out a mistake with the proposal in general. This is to show you where to improve in future when discussion changes of defaults.
On Sunday 15 January 2012 15:13:51 Darrell Anderson wrote:
I quite agree. That's why centered is *not* a useful placement strategy. It requires users to move their windows to have it useable. This is the worst thing which could happen.
Not really. I have used Centered for years. Here is a difference: I configure most apps to open maximized. Those few that I open in non-maximized mode typically get opened for a few moments and then closed. So for me, Centered is useful.
Here we have an important piece of information: you changed your settings to use placement strategy centered *and* configured most apps to open maximized. So what you are using is in fact a "Maximized or Centered" placement strategy which does not exist. Changing the default option does not yield in your desired behavior.
This means in order to really use your proposed default settings users would have to change either other options or more defaults would have had to be changed.
Now during the discussion it was not clear to me that you want further changes. My argumentation was around the placement strategy "centered" which has clear disadvantages. I pointed you to them and asked you to try centered as a placement strategy for a few days (of course I considered this with other default settings and not your own settings) and I also asked you to think not from your point of view. Here I'm sorry you clearly failed as you did not even notice that you had further changes. You need to try to think how the system behaves for the user. This is difficult and needs training :-)
So for future proposals I suggest you to first really try it with default settings. A good way to do that is to create a new user account. Also try to not propose the things you use if you have a highly configured system. Defaults have to be good for a large user base. It is impossible to find defaults which are perfect for all. That's quite an important lesson to learn: you cannot write software to suit all users needs. People are different and that's great. So the best default is hardly the one which works perfect for a subgroup of your userbase, but most likely the option which sucks least for all users is the best one. It's not nice, but especially on defaults it's important to find a good compromise. Also never tailor towards the needs of advanced users. They are advanced users, they find the settings ;-)
Also on an unrelated note: you talked a lot about usability studies and demanded them from me who was in favor of the existing default. Now this is of course completely wrong. You want the default to be changed, so it's your duty to deliver the usability study as a proof to your case.
Cheers Martin Gräßlin
This whole discussing of changing defaults has some merit to it. I personally have been using "Centered" as my default due to problems restoring previously saved sessions with "Smart" placement turned on. Case in point: KPDF.
Usually, if I have one or two KDPF windows open, the system would restore them not as I left them (maximized) but in a quarter of the screen size in the top left corner. This is bad and I haven't noticed this since changing to "Centered". This is probably an unrelated bug but the Smart placement doesn't seem optimal right now, especially for people with small size screens. I would like to hear if users have had similar problems.
I have tried it and think that from the user's PoV it is probably better to open the windows in cascade mode than Centered, since they typically upon one on top of the other. Smart I have also tried but it seems to have some poor settings like opening KPDF in a small window, whereas typically one would want it full screen in a 1280x1024 screen, though perhaps that's not the case for someone with a 1920x1080 one, which are rather common nowadays.
I have definitely liked reading your input Martin, as I've always had a special interest in hearing about usability and what can be done to improve the user's interaction with the system that is provided to them.
Best regards, Tiago
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Martin Gräßlin mgraesslin@kde.org wrote:
Normally I would not reply to a thread after a decision has been done. I do it nevertheless to point out a mistake with the proposal in general. This is to show you where to improve in future when discussion changes of defaults.
On Sunday 15 January 2012 15:13:51 Darrell Anderson wrote:
I quite agree. That's why centered is *not* a useful placement strategy. It requires users to move their windows to have it useable. This is the worst thing which could happen.
Not really. I have used Centered for years. Here is a difference: I configure most apps to open maximized. Those few that I open in non-maximized mode typically get opened for a few moments and then
closed.
So for me, Centered is useful.
Here we have an important piece of information: you changed your settings to use placement strategy centered *and* configured most apps to open maximized. So what you are using is in fact a "Maximized or Centered" placement strategy which does not exist. Changing the default option does not yield in your desired behavior.
This means in order to really use your proposed default settings users would have to change either other options or more defaults would have had to be changed.
Now during the discussion it was not clear to me that you want further changes. My argumentation was around the placement strategy "centered" which has clear disadvantages. I pointed you to them and asked you to try centered as a placement strategy for a few days (of course I considered this with other default settings and not your own settings) and I also asked you to think not from your point of view. Here I'm sorry you clearly failed as you did not even notice that you had further changes. You need to try to think how the system behaves for the user. This is difficult and needs training :-)
So for future proposals I suggest you to first really try it with default settings. A good way to do that is to create a new user account. Also try to not propose the things you use if you have a highly configured system. Defaults have to be good for a large user base. It is impossible to find defaults which are perfect for all. That's quite an important lesson to learn: you cannot write software to suit all users needs. People are different and that's great. So the best default is hardly the one which works perfect for a subgroup of your userbase, but most likely the option which sucks least for all users is the best one. It's not nice, but especially on defaults it's important to find a good compromise. Also never tailor towards the needs of advanced users. They are advanced users, they find the settings ;-)
Also on an unrelated note: you talked a lot about usability studies and demanded them from me who was in favor of the existing default. Now this is of course completely wrong. You want the default to be changed, so it's your duty to deliver the usability study as a proof to your case.
Cheers Martin Gräßlin
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 00:16:19 Tiago Marques wrote:
This whole discussing of changing defaults has some merit to it. I personally have been using "Centered" as my default due to problems restoring previously saved sessions with "Smart" placement turned on. Case in point: KPDF.
Usually, if I have one or two KDPF windows open, the system would restore them not as I left them (maximized) but in a quarter of the screen size in the top left corner. This is bad and I haven't noticed this since changing to "Centered". This is probably an unrelated bug but the Smart placement doesn't seem optimal right now, especially for people with small size screens. I would like to hear if users have had similar problems.
Now comes the interesting part: the windows tell KWin where to be put on restore. So what you describe with KPDF is most likely a bug in KPDF.
Cheers Martin
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Martin Gräßlin mgraesslin@kde.org wrote:
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 00:16:19 Tiago Marques wrote:
This whole discussing of changing defaults has some merit to it. I personally have been using "Centered" as my default due to problems restoring previously saved sessions with "Smart" placement turned on.
Case
in point: KPDF.
Usually, if I have one or two KDPF windows open, the system would restore them not as I left them (maximized) but in a quarter of the screen size
in
the top left corner. This is bad and I haven't noticed this since
changing
to "Centered". This is probably an unrelated bug but the Smart placement doesn't seem optimal right now, especially for people with small size screens. I would like to hear if users have had similar problems.
Now comes the interesting part: the windows tell KWin where to be put on restore. So what you describe with KPDF is most likely a bug in KPDF.
I see. Thanks. I'll be looking into this in more detail soon.
Best regards, Tiago
Cheers Martin
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
Darrell Anderson wrote:
Please keep the conversation focused to the DEFAULT setting and not what you prefer. The default setting is used when a person uses Trinity for the first time and is still learning to use the desktop. For a default setting, keep in mind new users, users migrating from Windows, traditional window placement, user expectations, newbies, etc.
Most users migrating to Trinity will come from KDE 3, so I would say keep all defaults as they were in KDE 3.
Best regards, Julius
-
/dev/ammo42 -
Baho Utot -
Darrell Anderson -
Julius Schwartzenberg -
Martin Gräßlin -
Tiago Marques -
Timothy Pearson