13 Jan
2012
13 Jan
'12
8:08 p.m.
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
13 Jan
13 Jan
10:09 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional
commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help(a)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
14 Jan
14 Jan
8:17 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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
6:41 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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
7:16 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Darrell Anderson <humanreadable(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional
commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help(a)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
15 Jan
15 Jan
8:58 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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
9:06 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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
10:32 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
On Sunday 15 January 2012 13:06:09 Darrell Anderson wrote:
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.
The technical limitations have to be considered when
changing defaults. This
is as important or maybe even more important than useability.
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!
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 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.
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"? 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
11:13 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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
11:55 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Darrell Anderson <humanreadable(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional
commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help(a)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
16 Jan
16 Jan
midnight
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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. 
midnight
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Darrell Anderson <humanreadable(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
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
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.
5:42 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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:
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
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. 
17 Jan
17 Jan
12:16 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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(a)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:
closed.
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 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
5:27 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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
7:23 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin(a)kde.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 00:16:19 Tiago Marques
wrote:
I see. Thanks. I'll be looking into this in more detail soon.
Best regards,
Tiago
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail:
trinity-devel-help(a)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
16 Jan
16 Jan
6:06 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Centered or "Smart" Default Window Placement
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
4491
days inactive
4495
days old
16 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
/dev/ammo42 -
Baho Utot -
Darrell Anderson -
Julius Schwartzenberg -
Martin Gräßlin -
Tiago Marques -
Timothy Pearson