[Master] Window Control buttons: position/order/alignment

Thanks for reporting this bug and any supporting documentation. Since this bug has enough information provided for a developer to begin work, I'm going to mark it as confirmed and let them handle it from here. Thanks for taking the time to make Ubuntu better!

Also do you think we could move the window buttons back to the upper right instead of the upper left over the File / Edit /Etc...

James, that would need to be in a second bug...

Now with the change of the window control buttons, I'm guessing that the title is meant to be this way..

After seeing this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Brand#New%20GtkThemes

I am going to mark this bug invalid.

http://www.webupd8.org/2010/03/new-ubuntu-1004-light-and-dark-themes.html - window controls are already on right side. Please re-open this bug.

I'm not going to reopen a bug based upon a third party blog post when the wiki artwork created by Canonical is available which shows the new theme design. Bug is still invalid.

It is strange. As you can see in bug attachments, window controls were on right side(just in strange order-see bug description). But after recent update they are on left side again. It is quite big regression, because I have(naturally a lot of people) a lot of applications, which have classic window controls(minimize,maximize,close) on right side(chrome,lingea, audacious...). I think that majority of ubuntu users will not welcome this change positively.

@marian
+1

I just changed theme to human, but window controls remain on left side. It looks horrible.(Attachment:human-window-controls.png) And what about consistency with applications, which do not use metacity (compiz)? I think, that a lot of regular users will have problems with it(Attachment:consistence_with_other_applications.png). Light theme is not also very accessible for users with impaired mobility or users with poor sight(window controls over File/Edit...).

Thank you very much, Majo

I have made this a "master bug report" or "metabug" as there are more reports coming in regarding this issue.

As stated on a duplicate bug report, if you are not happy with this design decision there is an easy workaround to revert this behaviour:
gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string ":minimize,maximize,close"

This bug is not invalid.

It would either be a "Wont Fix" or _might_ be re-considered for the final release.
This decision is something that needs to be made by the Upstream authors. The light themes hasnt yet been hosted publicly , once that is done , the concerned authors will decide.

Setting it to medium , since this is not just an aesthetic problem , but also forces users toloose muscle memory and change their usage patterns.

I would add that the arrangement of window controls does not revert to the expected layout when switching from Light back to Human or other themes, nor is there any way for a user to choose how they want their windows laid out except for the above workaround. It's great that it's an aesthetic decision, but a) it should only impact the new themes, and b) should be more readily user-controlled in the event that it is unwelcome.

I want to thank Mitch Towner for sharing the command to reverse the "new ART":

gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string ":minimize,maximize,close"

It worked immediately, thank you very much!

(As a Ubuntu user I would like to know all the commands to properly fix or configure the OS

This is part of the Linux/Ubuntu way, namely: The freedom to control ones own OS, apps,

and thereby be in control of one's PC. This choice has been taken away from us by

Microsoft, and hopefully will be given back to the people through Linux and Ubuntu

The tendency to control and have power over others is a huge BUG

At least we can escape to Ubuntu for a little more freedom!)

BavarianPH,
Ubuntu forever!

The menu is missing in this command! gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string "menu:minimize,maximize,close" ;-P

I think it would be better to switch the layout back because a lot of people strongly dislike the new layout. (It was not really welcomed by the Ubuntu users) The new button order also does not fit in well with a lot of other applications e.g. like Google Chrome or XMPP and no other major Linux Desktop uses it by default, which will confuse application developers. (The button order would have to be changed in KWin too to have a more consistent look)
Also, the icon of the application is not visible in titlebar anymore, which makes the order of windows even more confusing.
Would be good if a member of the Canonical design team could comment on this bug.

Setting to Low, as we have a workaround.

As this is a request to change the default settings I've changed the importance to Wishlist.

A workaroud??? You're kidding I hope?
The woarkaround breaks visual appearance because of symetry problems.

You may really think twice for such a huge habits change: LTS versions targets enterprises and aims to be a Red Hat or Suse alternative... but I really don't immagine any sysadmin install a distribution configured like this: Users screaming, loss of productivity...

This is really a pity to make this kind of change to:
-Make a bad copy of Apple layout, that count for 5% PC market share... whose users are under Steve gourou influence and are not really subject to change for any Linux flavour!
-Sink the Ubuntu boat in 6 months...

So please make this appear on top again... and go reading ubuntu forums to hear the scream about this stupidity!

We should have a way to revert to the old button layout in a GUI manner, not with a command-line workaround, as this affects the final user. Be able to put the button back to the right side (where they have always been) with a command line is just a usability joke.

Make a GUI to put the buttons on the left-side if you want, but please leave the buttons on the right side by default !
As the other Yann (!) says, this is a crazy change for a LTS !!!

Setting back to triaged as no more info is required for a developer to be able to work on this. Please don't change the status of this bug.
Please see top post for a workaround, sorry for missing the "menu" part of the string in my earlier post.

left side or right side is not the main problem.
Even If i agreed that copying the mac OS style is not the best idea. Some apps have the icon on right, so putting the gtk theme to the left will only perturb people.

for me this new themes are cool (in design) but are uggly in some way

if you try to force the buttons in this order : minimise, maximise, close => you will have an UGLY theme

and on ALL window who only have 2 or 3 buttons, you'll have something ugly too?field.comment=left side or right side is not the main problem for

for me this theme is cool (in design) but it's uggly in some way

if you try to force the buttons in this order : minimise, maximise, close => you will have an UGLY theme

and on ALL window who only have 2 or 3 buttons, you'll have something ugly too

ok having a new theme is cool, but changing the side an the order of the buttons is kind of disturbing
copy Mac design is a bad idea too.

there are about 5% Mac user,
and about 90% Windows user

Convincing 10% windows users to switch on ubuntu, will bring a LOT more people than bringing 100% of mac user

Ok there are people who want to change from windows to mac, but its not for the button position ^^ so stop copy useless stuff ^^

OK, setting back to "confirmed"... maybe this is the more appropriate as "triaged" is clearly inappropriate: Buttons artwork is so more symetric, so changing gconf makes this look very bad.

So the solution may be to change buttons to make them symetric again for users being able to change default behaviour withous artifact... or making a second theme that is coherent, that could be chosen at install.

Maybe Canonical could uses this to make stats on users choice: Is users choose left (I doubt!), maybe this could become the default in future releases. But let users decide!

@Yann , Kindly stop changing the bug status!

This bug has enough information , is there any information missing from the bug?

Triaged means:
    * A member of UbuntuBugControl believes that the report describes a genuine bug in enough detail that a developer could start working on a fix
    * Use this when you are confident that it should be looked at by a developer and has enough information

For more information on bug status , see : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status

The "developer" in tis case is the design team.

I like much the idea of the text on the left side than in the center. The place of the control-buttons has no importance for me.

This bug description mentions two completely separate issues: the window buttons and the window title. On the other hand, discussion seems to be completely about the buttons. I suggest editing the description to simplify things and maybe filing another bug if there is another regression caused by the position of the window title.

As well as being against the standard approach to how we manage bugs, putting both issues in one report is unfair to the other wishlist items being marked as duplicates of this one.
The window title position is a considerably less polarizing issue and one that _is_ controlled by individual themes (instead of gconf settings).

There's also the question of whether this is about the order of the buttons or just the side of the window they are on. The order of the buttons is what breaks other Metacity themes, while the side of the window is what really hurts muscle memory. I'm assuming you want them both back, but again, clarification in the bug description would go a long way.

Hi,

I know this doesn't solve the problem, but I have changed gnome-appearence-properties to include, on "Window borders" tab a simple switch for the window controls position. See branch and screenshot attached.

Maybe this will be handy for the users wanting to change back the position of the controls.

I do like left better :)

Wishlist? You must be joking! Did anybody see screenshots in attachment? (e.g. consistence_with_other_applications.png). No one distribution or desktop environment has window controls on the left side and also no one application for GNU/Linux, that does not use metacity(compiz). If you like window controls on the left side, please, there is a lot of mac os themes. And also the strange order of buttons, it will be very confusing for regular users. And even in LTS release....

I run Lucid-alpha3, and the "Customized Theme" tab / "Windows Border" tab
(or page)

does not have the option "Control: O right O left" ?

BavarianPH,
Ubuntu forever!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Alex Eftimie <email address hidden> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I know this doesn't solve the problem, but I have changed gnome-
> appearence-properties to include, on "Window borders" tab a simple
> switch for the window controls position. See branch and screenshot
> attached.
>
> Maybe this will be handy for the users wanting to change back the
> position of the controls.
>
> I do like left better :)
>
> ** Attachment added: "window_controls_position_gui.png"
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/40647960/window_controls_position_gui.png
>
> --
> [light-theme] please revert the order of the window controls back to
> "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/532633
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of a duplicate bug.
>
> Status in “light-themes” package in Ubuntu: Triaged
>
> Bug description:
> Binary package hint: light-themes
>
> Please centre window title like in human theme and also order window
> controls in classic order(minimize, maximize close).
> Thanks, Majo
>
> ------ WORKAROUND -----
> To revert to old layout, enter in terminal:
> $ gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string
> "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
>
> To unsubscribe from this bug, go to:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/+subscribe
>

Try to assign this to canonical desktop... Because current answers really look like bad jokes!

 assignee None

Yann, please do not assign bugs to someone unless you are responsible
for their tasking. You can assign a bug to yourself, or someone who
works for you, or a team or person in a team that you lead in Ubuntu.
But assigning a bug to someone who is NOT in that list is a bit like me
sending you an invoice for the time it has taken to write this email ;-)

Mark

the choice there is a design decision, it's worth noting though that the order should apply only to light themes, it doesn't now but the issue will be fixed for lucid, the title not being centered is also a different issue than the order and has a different bug.

That's nice to learn issue will be fixed before release and have been understood at highest Ubuntu level.

Regards

The issue is not a bug, it's a difference of opinion on what is the best
result. We may change it, or we may hold it.

Mark

How to we find out which is the best option? (My opinion is clear and the opinion of the community is, as far as I see, mostly negative. But if there is a good reason for choosing this button order (the dx-team will have made some tests before) and a possibility to fix this mess with XMPP and Google Chrome, I will not complain about the change.)

We'll consider it carefully, in the light of all of that information,
and take a decision.

Mark

Thanks!

  Matthias

XMPP and Google Chrome? There are tens of applications, that do not use metacity. This will be tragedy, I suppose...

I just named a few, prominent applications.

Is it planned to change the button layout in KDE, Xfce, LXDE and all other
desktops too? Cause if not, there will be not only an inconsistency between
Ubuntu and all other distributions and desktops, but also between the
different Ubuntu derivatives. This would be very bad, I suppose cause there
will be much confusion for users and for application developers who draw
their own window decorations.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:20:12 -0000, Marián Bača <email address hidden>
wrote:
> XMPP and Google Chrome? There are tens of applications, that do not use
> metacity. This will be tragedy, I suppose...
>
> --
> [light-theme] please revert the order of the window controls back to
> "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/532633
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>
> Status in “light-themes” package in Ubuntu: Triaged
>
> Bug description:
> Binary package hint: light-themes
>
> Please centre window title like in human theme and also order window
> controls in classic order(minimize, maximize close).
> Thanks, Majo
>
> ------ WORKAROUND -----
> To revert to old layout, enter in terminal:
> $ gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string
> "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
>
> To unsubscribe from this bug, go to:
>
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/+subscribe

I'm not in favor of the new position. But right now, the community opinion/poll is a moot point.
Its like asking Americans or British who have switched locales : “do you like driving on the right or the left side of the road?” ;-)
Stating it as a huge negative for the change is unfair.[OTOH, apps broken is a negative]

Change is always good , *if* there is a good reason to change.
Without knowing what the problem was earlier and why this has been changed , one really cant judge the change.
Of course , the problem with the old position has not been mentioned.

Since comments[debate?] on this bug are increasing , I'v updated the description with the apps affected.
Would be easier for the folks working on the bug , to see if the problem can be solved in the apps , rather than digging for the broken apps in the comments.

I for one don't see any possible good reason for this change (unless someone who was in charge of this change cares to explain), but in my opinion this is just something done for branding: OSX has the buttons on the left, Windows on the right, Ubuntu on the left but with maximize and minimize inverted so all 3 are different.

But the brand should be defined by good, not bad things (like this change).

Affected applications:
- Chrome/Chromium
- XMPP
What is this? These apps are not affected, they just use their own window decorators, identical with these in various desktop environments(GNOME, KDE. XFCE...), except Ubuntu. Why do they have to change their own window decorators, only because in Ubuntu(gnome only for now) are window controls on the left?

This has affected all applications on my ubuntu machine. No mater what theme I use. I used the work around and it put the buttons back to the right side but they are in wrong order. I am forever trying to maximize my window hitting the button I am used to hitting and the window disappears. I guess you can get used to the new way, but I would like to know why it was changed. Thanks

It should be mentioned that the discussion would be much more productive if there was actually an official stance, a wiki documentation, a blog post, or *anything* explaining the reasons for the change.

This was made for NotifyOSD, for the MessagingMenu and for most of the non-trivial changes Ubuntu introduced.

The closest the users got to an explanation was the latest blog entry in Ivanka Majic's blog (http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281), but that post raised only the questions and none of the answers. Even worse, it showed that the design is not an unanimity *not even among the design team itself*.

I'm not saying that the explanation should satisfy everyone. All I'm saying is that it should exist.

@Matthias

I certainly hope they switch things back to normal. It would be way too much of a hassle to switch every other Ubuntu-based OS just because of what they "think" is a good design. I feel bad for the Lucid users using Chrome...

This seems to be a real usability problem. And it's an LTS, OMG!

I was reading a blog post, http://www.webupd8.org/2010/03/update-on-new-ubuntu-themes-dark-and.html - and I really hope he is right and the default will not change. Too many problems. :(

Please try to fundamentally change the UI only with non-LTS versions. Thank you.

I'm not sure if this has been noted but it seems there is also a real bug here (not just difference of opinion) in that every time light-themes is updated it reverts the user's setting in gconf. So even if you do change the button order back as soon as light-themes updates it will change it back. I assume the change to make the button order only apply to light-themes will also fix that.

You can also use the following to reset the button order:

gconftool-2 -u /apps/metacity/general/button_layout

As the final decision is not made, maybe this little pool could help ;o)
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/poll-do-you-want-ubuntu-window-controls.html

At time of writing, 79% to keep current non Apple standard...

i've grown quite find of the changes and from a usabilty standpoint it seems to be very efficient, absent the muscle memory. I am not nor was a Mac user so this change was absolutely foreign to me. After two days, instinctively I've noticed my mouse pointer idles cocnsistently just under the left side of the metacity buttons. This makes the screen real estate adjustment much shorter, distance wise for me. I know I'm probably in the minority, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.

I agree with James Schriver, once one get used to the new position of the buttons, he/she can reach them in less time because top-left corner is almost always nearer the content of the window than the top-right corner.

This, though, doesn't explain the choise to set the new position of the buttons to all other themes. Each theme must have its own settings, so revert DEFAULT metacity options to older ones, and change the individual settings for the new two themes.

I disagree. I am a right hander, the pointer usually stands-by on the right part of the screen, as such | under_bar | square | cross buttons on the right of the windows = best usability & common standard

This is obviously a "Mac complex", and speaking for myself Mac s...s at 100% with their pedantic concepts of "doing things differently"

Be very careful with this kind of change: A few hours in a virtual machine doing almost nothing but testing may not be appropriate.

To illustrate this, I still sometimes close a window with intend to maximise or minimize it: The reason is these max/min controls were on the right in windows 3.x and close was on the right side... 15 years and I still sometimes make this error!

When I close an autosaved document, that's not so much troubles... but when that's the debugger after 2 hours trying to solve my embedded target problem, that's almost 2 hours lost: Some things cannot be saved and this is why in a corporate environment targeted by LTS, this will be a huge deal breaker for Canonical.

Coherency with many apps (especially the ones using tabs, tab close will stay right as usual... what a mess) is another problem.

Those who give Ubuntu a try at home having windows at work will not want to change their habits several times a day.

Ubuntu bug #1 will not be solved this way IMO...

This poll and discussion also favours no change with buttons on the right.

Lucid testing forum.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1422422

Good to hear that other themes won't be affected by this change for Lucid.
Still seems a totally defunct change which is not meeting support, however.

With these settings I had the problem for 4 hours and the next day when I started ubuntu I had no problem with the new controls position rather things look better as there nothing on the top right side. People complain without even testing the change for a few hours. (Even when a person wears new clothes it takes a bit time to adjust in them ;)

Omer, I do not disagree with your statement and I have grown used to the new position/ordering myself. However, any change to habits must have a reasoning behind it.

When NotifyOSD was introduced, people had to change some habits, but all the usability arguments and future roadmaps were/are available in a nice wiki page for anyone to see. The same goes for the Messaging Menu, the Software Center and the Me Menu. Even the color choice in the new branding was explained in a long and detailed blog post by Mark Shuttleworth.

For the button positioning, however, there was absolutely no official stance from the design team on the reasoning behind it. In a recent Ars Technica article, Ryan Paul states that Ivanka Majic posted explanations in her blog. As I previously stated in this bug report, not only her blog post mentions only the questions and no answers, but clearly states that she does not agree with the design herself.

I doubt that revealing the reasoning would satisfy all users, but at least they would have a base to build arguments on. Right now, a lot of people are *assuming* the reasons and criticizing Canonical based on those assumptions. This is wrong, but there's little else possible when an official statement does not exist.

I agree with Conscious User whole heartedly on the reasoning front.

So far many people have provided numerous valid arguments re usability in the blogs and forums and in this bug report against making this change - breaking themes, breaking with another applications look and feel that don't use Metacity, restricting usability - for visually impared users, muscle memory, change to icon order, close icons too close to Edit/View menu in many applications etc etc. However no one is yet to provide any valid and convincing arguments for this change.

People are making assumptions, but even if those assumptions turn out to be valid they are very weak reasons for making such a change. People will/may get used to it, but that's not the point. I personally wouldn't get used to it becuase I switch daily between Microsoft Windows use and Ubuntu use. So I will apply whatever workaround is necessary to facilitate my own needs. But for new users to Ubuntu there needs to be an air of familiarity and this already exists even with dual panels.

This change breaks usability and compatibilty in a default LTS installation of Ubuntu and there is no official word for the reasoning behind it. Until we can enter into the discussion and challenge and understand those reasons this is a bug because something has changed with no explanation.

if the new theme brougth something new i wouldnt complain.
the big problem for me is the new order. i can change side as i want to bit the order bothers me...
i was looking forward to something new and exiting. i was imagining something like the maximize icon on top of the minimize icon, and then the close icon on the side. this could bi devidet so the minimize and miximize was on one side and the close on the other.
or maybe combine the 2 bars so the icons was at the same line as file, preferences and so on, but this change of the order doesnt make sence and only results in the system not dooing what is expectet.

furthermore the grafic design of the butons are made so that they hang together. that is ugly if you change the order

A lot of people use these controls to identify the right edge of the
active window. This is significant when there is more then one window
overlapping each other on the display. The same issue is there with the
window title. When it is centered (as in human) one can know that the
window is stretching to the left side as far as to the right side from
the position of the title. Putting all info to the left gives no
information at all concerning the window dimensions. Do not ignore this
visual aspects. The current window design (until human) did not just
drop from the sky. Someone had good arguments for them, which I cannot
confirm for the light themes.

-----Oorspronkelijke bericht-----
Van: Omer Akram <email address hidden>
Reply-to: Bug 532633 <email address hidden>
Aan: <email address hidden>
Onderwerp: [Bug 532633] Re: [light-theme] please revert the order of the
window controls back to "menu:minimize, maximize, close"
Datum: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:30:18 -0000

With these settings I had the problem for 4 hours and the next day when
I started ubuntu I had no problem with the new controls position rather
things look better as there nothing on the top right side. People
complain without even testing the change for a few hours. (Even when a
person wears new clothes it takes a bit time to adjust in them ;)

It would be nice to have a clear decision, now, to revert or not on this design change... and the reason for the try, just for users's respect...

So the ones that do not agree could stop talking to walls here and start using their time to consider alternatives.

half of the dupe reports talk about the controls being on the left side instead of the usual right. This bug report says nothing of that in the title or description. Are the same principles applied to this one as well? If not, we need to separate them.

"Change is always good , *if* there is a good reason to change." - this is emphatically false. Change is by default bad, even if there are good reasons for it. There must be *excellent* reasons for change, not merely good reasons.

Where is the discussion about pros/cons? Where can we learn what caused that change and why should we be happy about it? When will Ubuntu team stop dropping such bombs just before the freezes? (why does it remind me of the update notification fiasco?)

Maybe some person who is responsible for the change can list the reasons and address the long list of usability / compatibility issues listed in http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/194 ?

Quote of the blog Stanislaw Pitucha mentioned:

Why the new windows control order is wrong:
"• Because the window title isn’t centered, the window controls being placed directly in front of it put it in a weird indented position
• The “slightly off left” location is inconsistent with Nautilus, Firefox, Thunderbird, Pidgin, Empathy, and every other tabbed program we have, which have close buttons for their tabs on the right.
• The left position is inconsistent with Windows, previous versions of Ubuntu, and even OSX – users have to relearn decades of muscle memory.
• Users who interact with both Windows and Ubuntu machines (or migrate from Windows) will have a much harder time than they did before.
• The buttons are too close to the file and edit menus, making catastrophic misclicks much more likely. Closing something on accident should be as rare as possible.
• Even without misclicking, a user will have to take more time to use the window control and avoid a misclick. This is an example of Fitt’s Law.
• The close position is also inconsistent with the power button in upper right. Currently, “close it down” is something you can always do from the upper right anywhere in the system: within a tab, within a window, and even for the whole computer. The new window controls break that entirely.
• The new position leaves a lot of empty, wasted space in the upper right of most windows. While strictly speaking the amount of unused space is the same, it looks much worse when it’s all clustered together. When the controls are on the right, the extra space can function as a buffer for the potentially destructive window controls.
• Similarly, the upper left of most windows now becomes much more crowded, creating a rather unpleasing contrast to the relatively empty upper right.
• In previous Ubuntus you could close windows on the left if you really wanted, by expanding the small circle menu that’s now gone entirely. File->Quit is also an option, which is now very close to the close box.
• Gnome upstream has them on the right, causing consistency and developmental problems when we deviate. This is particularly jarring with the adoption of future projects like Gnome shell and Gnome 3, which will change again how we interact with window controls.
• The current implementation breaks themes not designed for the new button order (which is currently every theme we ship, so even changing the theme back doesn’t help)
• A day before User Interface freeze of a long term support release is the worst possible time to suddenly spring this on everyone without explanation.
• It is very difficult to change them back as we don’t have any UI tool for doing this (the current method is manually editing gconf keys)
• The new position doesn’t actually do anything beneficial."

A related (but separate) bug is the fact that gnome-appearance-properties shows the window controls on the right, regardless of the settings in the gconf key. By default, this would make the Appearance utility inconsistent with the look of windows on Ubuntu, unless this change is reverted. See bug #538204.

I'd like to add another problem with moving the default buttons to the upper left.

In gconf-editor, the setting /apps/metacity/general/button_layout "Unset" position restores the buttons to the upper right. Without commenting on the location decision, the "Unset" command should restore the button positions to the upper left, which is the new default position if I'm not mistaken.

I tried adding a report with "ubuntu-bug gconf-editor" but it will not connect to the server. This seemed like a logical alternative.

More people want it on the right by default than at the left, change it back! doing this hours before the interface freeze is ridiculous! Anything but the buttons! Release Mangers please fix!

I support moving the controls back to the position where users expect them rather than change by fiat.

Just think how much consensus cred canonical could get back by listening to the community on this one. It would be the perfect counterexample for years against accusations of undemocratic behavior.

If it was possible I would say that for Lucid buttons on right side with option to move them on Left side from appearance menu, for Lucid+1 buttons on left with option to move on left side and lucid+2 only left side.

Why move them at all, whether it be in Lucid, Lucid+1 or Lucid+5? Where's the rationale?

This was meant as a "design" idea... not a good one, but an "iadea" that passed as "it is" before even posting it BrainStrorm for consideration.

http://blog.daviey.com/blogroll/anything-but-the-buttons.html

It should be reverted by RC... if not this could end bad, very bad for Ubuntu.

I think that bug #532633 it's related but not a duplicate. Bug #532633 wants to revert the order of the buttons when this bug is for the buttons place, not it's order. Anyway, they should fix both problems by RC, they are critical usability BUGs.

This bug is not in the light-theme nor Metacity... it's in the configuration made by Ubuntu developers.

Disadvantages:
-Aesthetically unpleasing: Windows button, application menu and panel menu all stacked.
-Increase the chance of closing the window accidentally.
-Breaking consistency of all Ubuntu releases, most Linux distros and window's managers.
-Most people don't like it
-Come on!!! IT'S A LTS RELEASE!!!

That was a really unprofessional decision. There always has to be really good reasons to break consistency.
Asking yourself why is it there, and then changing it IS NOT A GOOD DECISION

The command gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string "menu:minimize,maximize,close" (as referred to in both the title & the bug description) reverts the button order *and* the position to how it was before the update changed it. This bug report is referring to both of these issues as they were *both* changed by the same update. That is the reason this was made a *master* bug report. Furthermore, this bug (or more correctly, this "difference of opinion" as stated by sabdfl) *is* related to light-themes as the change was introduced by the light-themes package. See http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/l/light-themes/light-themes_0.1.5.4/changelog

Further discussion should really take place on the brainstorm page mentioned earlier (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/23899/), not on the bug report(s). If too many non productive comments (e.g. comments that are not adding new, relevant information) are added to the bug reports, they become unwieldy & make it very difficult for developers to see relevant comments through all of the noise.

Please continue this discussion at http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/23899/

As long as the settings of the buttons can be changed in an easy manner through the gconf-editor, this bug is closed for me.

The layout change is at the discretion of Canonical after all. We, end users, can revert it if we don't get by.

Why should the user have to go through gconf-editor to change this? Average user doesn't know about gconf-editor, and certainly doesn't know what key to modify.

I'm not opposed to this kind of change, but it should be changable from the Settings|Appearance panel, which is the natural place for this kind of thing. You should be able to set the orientation and ordering of the frame controls in the same place that you set the size of the mouse cursor, that is, it should be theme-dependant.

Another discution takes directly place here, with design chief:
http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281

But if this one is not considered a true bug (in a sense that's right: This is not a software error... but a design error that will cause users errors and loss of productivity: Same result in a way)... just don't forget that at the beginning of Ubuntu founding principles, there is bugs that are not really bugs also ;o)

This bug affects me as well. The window controls should be on the right side and in the standard order of minimize, maximize, close for the final release of Lucid. At the very least, please make this configurable. If someone actually wants the controls on the left side, they can make this adjustment on their own.

This is also annoying for x automation scripts, as well as being a design issue.
Was there any consideration for users with accessibility needs during this decision process?

Assuming (and I think it's true) that the majority of Ubuntu users' native language is written from left to right, it is also important to notice that both human eyes and screen readers will want to first read the title of a window, and only after see buttons which yield no information at all (since they are the same in all windows).

But then, I feel quite ridicule in commenting about a secret, totalitaristic (and entirely legitimate, sure) decision on the configuration of a project, GNOME, which instead devotes so much attention to usability.

It's funny how whenever there is bad press (and the net is full of hate now, because of this decision), they say file bugs, participate in the community.

And there's the stonewalling.
I really feel like Canonical is just giving us the finger here.

The success of Ubuntu was always about the community. And often when there was an 'issue' that divided Canonical from Ubuntu, canonical could count on a very large silent majority (for example, look at the issue of codecs).

But that silent majority is upset. They don't like many of the changes.
I've shows the look 'n feel to a couple of users I maintain, and they are very explicitely 'i don't want that'.

Not just about the window icons. The icon spacing also.
And they already hated the gdm changes that happened in karmic.

Just a general question, does Canonical do any user testing at all?

Because I literally showed this to my non-technical friends I have running on Ubuntu, just to get an honest response.
I wasn't suggesting I didn't like the theme or anything. I was really curious if this was one of those 'silent majority' situations again, where only us nerds get upset.

But it's not.

Mark I want to warn you.
This is going to seriously Ubuntu's popularity.

Not just the window button issue. But the complete inconsistency of the design.

To summarize the issues:
  - with lucid whether programs will have their buttons on left or right will be random in the eyes of most users
  - the close button is not at a corner, which will increase RSI
  - the GDM is still not usuable on 1024 width, (ever since Karmic). It simply doesn't fit.
  - the horizontal margins on the notification area are different from the vertical margins and any other visual language throughout the UI
  - red is only used on the window buttons
  - the window buttons are the only one's that look like spheres.
  - purple is only for both tooltips and window background, making them hard to read.
  - the scrollbars have a very different inconsistent 3d effect with gourad shading on them that's not used anywhere else.
  - the issue of the ugly position of notification bubbles is still there (because of the searchbox when we have firefox maximized? seriously?)

Maybe the designers you hired are very talented. Maybe they are not.
But the end result is a mutated monster with no vision, with no consistent visual language and it is upsetting everybody.
Stop stonewalling the community.

If the before mentioned issues are really design decisions (which I doubt), then we would love to hear the rationale.
So far, all we hear is stuff like 'opinions can differ' .. and 'its not final yet'.

Should design start with the rationale, and then be implemented.

Shouldn't it be easy to publish the rationale of stuff like the window button positions, icon spacing issues, gdm not fitting in 1024 width anymore, etc. ?

Or were the rationales not documented?
Or perhaps more likely, for many of these decisions, there was no rationale?

Look at how well established and consistent the branding work was.. and how easy it was to explain the rationale.
is it too much to ask to do the same for the style of _actual product_ ?

This is a terrible change. I don't want to go from Ubuntu just because of border buttons! Please, make it an option!

And why is this bug about light themes? This change affects ALL themes!

> I really feel like Canonical is just giving us the finger here.
> Mark I want to warn you

R u kidding? Hopefully, it's a minority voicing up their complains in an unfriendly and with a self-centred vision. Nevertheless, it is undermining. If I was Mark, I would give the finger, and go on a island with some of my Canonical friends, for a break.

I dislike the "Mac" feel of these icons, as their layout on the left, but let's be passionate about hardware compatibility, or mono eradication, and less about minor cosmetic details.

I am done with this bug report, may the buttons be on the upper left, right, or even on the middle of the window...

In a school environment, there are a large number of users, both students and mainly older staff, who have just recently learned to consistently locate the power button and shut down the machine from within the operating system. My concern is in providing support for transitioning these users through a change that appears to be change for the sake of change, adding no functionality. My suggestion would be to continue with a default buttons on the right arrangement, making the new arrangement easily available through a GUI.

Regarding the comments that have been less than polite, please understand I am making no indictment against Mark Shuttleworth, Canonical, or the Ubuntu developers--quite the contrary. I really like Ubuntu and the packages that come with it; they are delightful, and Mr. Shuttleworth is appreciated. Even though the comments here and in other places may not always be complimentary, they show significance and impact--people care!

I've had those buttons at the same place for about twenty years, and I've used them a large amount of times almost every day during these years. It's incomprehensible to me that someone could consider this a mere cosmetic change.

left or right?

POINT:
Who cares what your use to. Tradition isn't correct because people have been using it longer.
Left is great and is perfect for the desktop environment and is very easy to navigate since we read from left to right we would start from the left. The buttons start from the left also, therefore allowing the user to quickly move a couple of pixels and select a button.
I say give the option for both the "traditionalists"aka right and for the "modernists" aka the left.
This is a positive thing people as in + not this -

Let's not compare it to mac windows or any other os lets just look at what is faster for a user with no bias involved.

Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen-I have to disagree with you i think its is going in a positive direction the icons and is improving bit by bit.
The "new brand" is amazing and your criticism sounds more like insults then actual criticism.
You started off with a few good points and then just started to insult rather then suggest.

@michael, During karmic release cycle I installed karmic beta on my friends
laptop, he was inspired by ubuntu that its free, how the company afford
something like an OS without getting any money from the user. When I ran the
live session he did not notice but when the installation completed and I
gave him the laptop and asked him to try it for a few minutes without asking
anything from me. after he tested he said. "Yaar ismain change kia hai?"
translated "whats different in it" I looked at him with straight eyes ( now
he uses windoze). In my believe we should (ubuntu) look and feel different
from our biggest enemy. This change makes the feel of the OS cooler IMHO.
For usability point of view, think that every application is using things on
the left sides == browser tabs, buttons in every app start from left, menu
buttons like file,edit start from left so why go to the right hand side for
window operations?
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:20 AM, MichaelSwengel <email address hidden>wrote:

> @tsm124, the new brand is great - and that's not what we're talking
> about here. The problem is the button location and layout.
>
>
> (btw, you'd better not be using "tsm" as "TrueSongMedia"... ;) )
>
> --
> [light-theme] please revert the order of the window controls back to
> "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/532633
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>
> Status in “light-themes” package in Ubuntu: Triaged
>
> Bug description:
> Binary package hint: light-themes
>
> Please centre window title like in human theme and also order window
> controls in classic order on the right side (menu, minimize, maximize
> close).
>
> Thanks, Majo
>
> ------ WORKAROUND -----
> To revert to old layout, enter in terminal:
> $ gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string
> "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this bug, go to:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/+subscribe
>

I hate the new theme, I hate the new GDM, I hate half baked "solutions" for the distro. Canonical is being too edgy on releases, that's the other extreme to debian (lagging a lot on releases for "stability").

I'm migrating to another distribution. This "bug" for me is closed.

I dont't think the new button order is a good choice, it's the worst think the dx team could do cause of the things named above.
But I would understand if Canonical wouldn't change the buttons back, as the company sponsoring Ubuntu Canonical has every right to do so.
But there is one thing I really hate: The community ASKED Canonical to change the layout back, but they did not even COMMENT on the change. No member of the teams responsible for this change have commented on the bug report.
This is really disappointing. This behavior looks like Canonical does not care about the community, they do not even want to explain the changes they did.

Would someone of the dx-team be so nice to explain why the change was made and if there is a chance to change it back for the LTS?

It's taken two years and 116 comments here (https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/metacity/+bug/160311) to make absolutely no progress whatsoever. I doubt we'll be seeing this LTS with buttons on the right. Maybe the next LTS.

General "usability" in Ubuntu is pretty low and I think it's down to a complete lack of usability studies. If they /are/ performed, they're being done so privately and the results are remaining private. Until we can see the results of such a study, all we have is one person's opinions against another. And it sounds a lot like Mark's made up his mind on this one - given his comments and participation in this thread and the suspicious timing of this change (on the day of the UI freeze).

If buttons remain on the left, we have to change a lot of community themes since their title bar is messed up now (title no longer centered) see screenshot. Is there a bug for this already or should I file a new one? It would definitely depend on this bug.

If we're really going to run into a left/right schism, then this bug should be worth looking at: bug 533758.

@Scaine: "it sounds a lot like Mark's made up his mind on this one - given his comments and participation in this thread and the suspicious timing of this change (on the day of the UI freeze)"

I agree with that:

If one's want to make sure... just send Mark S. an NMI playing with bug affectation!

As it seems a lot of people disagree with this change and the way it was done (when you want to fuck someone unwilling... take him by surprise...), up to quit Ubuntu... Taking the risk of being kicked from launchpad is no more a problem.

Maybe the "Steve Jobsite" should be considered a new illness, indeed!

@ Yann: To maintain a respectful atmosphere, please follow the code of conduct - http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct/ . Bug reports are handled by humans, the majority of whom are volunteers, so please bear this in mind. Please refrain from using such inappropriate language with Launchpad.

Mitch: I'm sure individuals pushing this interface change, which imo does not respect users at all (aim and method/timing, see hereupper), have all signed this "code of conduct"...

Corollary: That's not a valid respect criteria... Maybe a bug report should be filled :o)

I have totally fixed this problem in my PPA: https://launchpad.net/~stownsend42/+archive/light-themes

Make sure you log out and then log back in after installing my version of light-themes.

After that, your interface should look like this: http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8910/screenshotxchatsomepers.png

Sam, thanks for making the PPA, and I encourage folks who prefer that
layout to use it, or to follow the instructions for setting the gconf
preference manually. It's great that you can do that.

The default position of the window controls will remain the left,
throughout beta1. We're interested in data which could influence the
ultimate decision. There are good reasons both for the change, and
against them, and ultimately the position will be decided based on what
we want to achieve over time.

Moving everything to the left opens up the space on the right nicely,
and I would like to experiment in 10.10 with some innovative options
there. It's much easier to do that if we make this change now. I
appreciate that it's an emotive subject, and apologise for the fact that
I haven't been responding in detail to every comment - I'm busy moving
house this week. But the design team is well aware of the controversy,
your (polite) comments and more importantly *data* are very welcome and
will help make the best decision.

When we have a celebrity bug report like this, it's a real exercise for
our values of communication, civility, and ubuntu. Thank you to those
who have pointed to the code of conduct when things get heated. And
thanks even more to those who FELT heated but didn't let it show :-)

Mark

Thanks Mark! This statement was exactly what I wanted to hear. (I'll definitely not change back from Ubuntu, no matter were the buttons are :-P)

Thank you Mark! In a school environment, we tend to adopt the LTS release and keep it until a few months (read: summer break) after the next LTS is released. So, for now, any computers with the new LTS distribution here will feature buttons on the right for the sake of consistency.

However, that does not mean I am against buttons on the left if there is something constructively occupying space on the right--nor do I mind providing support for our "less computer savvy users" if this means additional functionality. Changing the buttons now to transition users before adding new functionality in 10.10 makes sense. For now, though, I plan to wait to transition my users at a more opportune time.

Again, thank you for all that you do. It is appreciated!

Mark Appier

@Mark
I think this is a very sensitive decision to take in a LTS release, considering how many users are unable/unwilling to learn how to change it. It will create that kind of frustration that is not critical but enough to create "hatred" to the brand. There are already several shortcomings/papercuts annoying non-technical users and this will be a big one. If the geek friend/employee is not there to fix it, the amount of complaints will be very big.
Also, I would like to hear real explanations on the "good reasons" for the change. So far it seems just a mere "let's be different" decision. As for the usability behind it...well, you are just ignoring the usability studies that put the close buttons on the corners in the first place.

Let's be clear, this decision doesn't affect ME, I am a KDE user and I am able to modify a simple theme. And as me, most of the concerned users here. But the problem is, as always, the masses. Ubuntu often gets installed by "the geek friend" to the "average Joe"....think of the geek friends everywhere ;) We are worrying about the reaction of the masses because it will ultimately influence Ubuntu's view to the world. Whiners make much more noise than satisfied customers.

Also, gconf is as valid as workaround as the registry is in Windows. It's an unfriendly, crude app that just works, and mistakes on it require fixing beyond the abilities of an Average Joe. Consider that as well if you want to go forward. Maybe you should go "browser ballot screen" on the users to give them a choice before starting.

But the biggest problem here is the feeling of our calls for sanity seeming to fall in deaf ears. This is like a poker bluff. Be really sure you got good cards, or you might lose brand credibility and be labeled as just another evil megacorp. Once you get the stigma, you'll be forever evil even if you just make one mistake.

Mark, as much as I appreciate the response, it would be interesting (and would allow more constructive discussions) if it was a little less vague. Do sketches (even very rough ones) of new ideas for the right side already exist? Or possibilities for the right side will be thought only *after* the results of this experiment are obtained?

I'm asking this because there wasn't any argument given in favor of the change (at least not officially) before your post, and now those "future possibilities" seem to be the first one. One has to wonder if they are the only one.

So please, if possible, can you list some concrete, non-vague arguments in favor of the left side? Not responses to the arguments against (easy to adapt, easy to revert, etc.), I mean pure arguments in favor (ex: "we did usability studies and the efficiency of having all clickable things on the same side outweighted the risk of accidental clicking").

At the very least, isn't it possible that you could give an official statement declaring once and for all that future possibilities for the right side are the main reason, if that's the case?

So in the *ahem* "light" of this declaration, should we file bugs for applications that do not consistently follow the "close goes on the left" style within closable UI elements like tabs - for instance, Nautilus (both in the sidebar and the file manager tabs) and Firefox? Shouldn't these apps be patched so to respect the window manager's preference?

There is poll data available: The Ubuntu Forums have a poll (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1422422) where 76% prefer the right side, and OMG Ubuntu has a similar poll (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/poll-do-you-want-ubuntu-window-controls.html) with their readers preferring 79% to the right. Ubuntu Brainstorm has this issue as the #1 item with 611 votes for the right side versus -11 for the left (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/23899/).

> Moving everything to the left opens up the space on the right nicely, and
>I would like to experiment in 10.10 with some innovative options
> there.

Then the best solution would be to introduce the right/left change when you have implemented that technology. That way, the user can weigh the benefits of the new technology and the learning curve. As it stands, it appears capricious to many without the associated benefit.

Unlike many here, I don't have a huge issue with moving the window controls to the left side -- like many, I was relieved that the change is planned only for the light themes, although all other themes are currently broken.

However, even given that, the control order is odd. Again, unlike many here, I don't have an issue with the "Mac style" -- but currently, it isn't even done in the Mac OS X style. If we do want to move the controls to the left, I think it would be best to match the control order in Mac OS X, not only for familiarity (which is a reason given to keep controls on the right), but also because we aren't really certain (without given usability studies) of whether the new layout, which is different from all mainstream environments (including GNOME and KDE) is actually better, and whether this "better" is worth re-learning to be different.

I propose that if we are going to move the controls to the left, that we ought to give careful consideration to simply using the already familiar control order from Mac OS X -- to do otherwise should be backed up by some rationale, at the very least.

Placing more controls on the right is interesting, but doesn't change the problem that having a strange order (to all users) of controls gives. If we must have them on the left, can we at least go for some familiarity?

It's nice to get some comeback on this, but we still don't understand the reasoning behind the decision. If there is stuff coming in 10.10 that might necessitate moving the buttons, and you can't tell what they are - fair enough, but why not make the change in 10.10!

The usability _is_ impaired with this change. I've made this comment in a few places and I'll make it again. Compatibility - users ought to be able to use knowledge gained from other systems, the positioning and layout are like nothing else so this usability quality is violated. Coherence - Firefox, Nautilus and I daresay other applications all have close on the right.

I stuck with the new layout until tonight. I had to change back it just wasn't working for me.

How about this - use the massive interest in this issue to get some people interested in doing proper usability tests with a view to changing things in 10.10 if that's what the testing indicates would be best.

"Moving everything to the left opens up the space on the right nicely,
and I would like to experiment in 10.10 with some innovative options
there. It's much easier to do that if we make this change now."

It'd have been nice if this comment had been made some time ago, together with a deep reasoning on the concrete changes that are in mind.

We are supposed to be a community, we all use Ubuntu and contribute to it, and we deserve some respect regarding these kind of decisions. We all make Ubuntu together, or is it a big lie? If you want to tell us that we are all part of it, we want information, and we want our opinion to be decisive.

I'm talking about polls where only 10% of the people wants this change. And I'm talking about the secrecy on the reasons and the future UI plans for Ubuntu, which will deeply affect all of us. We want to take part of it, and we are excluded, as we were in the new branding design. I've seen lots of proposals for new brandings and themes over these years (been using ubuntu since Warty indeed), some of them really good, and most of them going nowhere. There is talent in the community. But someone decided then that it wasn't what we needed, that we needed no change. And now, someone has decided that it is the moment, now we need a change, but without our contribution, without our opinion. Without us.

If we are working together, if this is *really* a community, there are a few things wrong here.

Non-troll comment for sabdfl or the canonical design team. As a Lucid tester, how will you get "data" on me as a single user changing back to the more sane (imo) right side default? Seriously, is there a button that says, "Send button position gconf data to canonical"? I'll click it if there is one, but think there isn't.

If not, how are you supposed to know how many people are reverting this user interface experiment to the upstream default button position? What determines whether this change was a success or not? ie: Ok threshhold xxx has been met so we should revert this change for the next beta? I'm very interested to know.

Thanks and keep up the good work! Lucid is the best release yet.

The biggest issue with this left/right positioniong is consistency. Other applications have already be mentioned. But there is also Ubuntu Netbook Remix. When one maximizes a window, the close button is on the right hand side again. That's very confusing.

So, if the controls are to remain on the left, then the UNR titlebar in the panel has to be changed as well, to have its close button on the left side (and maybe the unmaximize and minimize buttons should be added, and the look should be adjusted to that of the theme).

"Moving everything to the left opens up the space on the right nicely"

Well... but my mouse pointer default position, when "idle", is on the right... I think that's the same for almost every right handed people I observe!

Is this only valid for right handed side of the population? Not sure: Most of them also read left to right... and expect ending lines and closing facts to be there.

Maybe this setup should be users's choice in accessibility items like mouse buttons reversal and so on... and everyone depending on it's preferences, right or left handed, reading the occidental or arabic way... could make HIS decision.

And that would be the right (huh!) rmethod even if this kind of users respect is not in the bible-code. Let's let the "inconditionnal respect of the guru way" be Apple's code of conduct, not Ubuntu's one.

That's my last words on this subject: IMO no more data are needed, every biggest concerns have already been explained several times.

If this is maintained without user easy user choice (maybe a choice screen at install could be added, and choice statistics recorded and default changed in future versions only if I'm wrong), that will be a political decision and there is imo no more to do... But I can hear Steve Ballmer laughing from 9000km.

Whatever Mark has got up his sleeve, I think it's a very bad decision to partially implement it in an LTS release. A lot of the user-base (read: non-geek users) will be using this release until the next LTS in 2012. Where is the logic in leaving them stuck with a partially implemented feature for this length of time?

From the LTS wiki:
> We are more conservative in our package merge with Debian, auto-synching with Debian testing, instead of Debian unstable.
> We start stabilizing the release early by significantly limiting the number of new features. We will choose which features we package into the LTS release, versus which ones we leave out and allow for users to optionally download and use from a separate archive.
> Avoid structural changes as far as possible, such as changing the default set of applications, lots of library transitions, or system layer changes (example: introducing KMS or hal → DeviceKit would not have been appropriate changes in a LTS).

Change it in 10.10 Alpha 1 if you want time to gather data and feedback.

Regarding Shuttleworth's hints of new features using the right corner coming in 10.10...

I've generally supported all the choices to use incomplete features and software in the past, as I've seen the need for things to be given time to bed in before the next LTS (empathy and software centre being prime examples), but to move the window controls now just because in the LTS +1 you want to experiment with stuff in the right corner... I just don't buy that as an argument.

Your LTS is supposed to be your flagship product that people will want to run for multiple years. In a way your regular 6 month releases are all effectively beta releases for the LTS, since installing an LTS defaults to wanting to only upgrade to the next LTS. So why potentially spoil the LTS in order to facilitate an experiment in what is effectively a beta release. It just doesn't make sense.

If the LTS release actually does its job right, and gives people a great OS that they will want to use for multiple years, then that means people won't even see these new amazing right corner features for YEARS. Imagine explaining that to someone...

"In case you are wondering why the window controls are in the left, well its because 2 years from now you will be able to use new features in the right corner. Cool huh?"

No. No its not.

I have nothing against buttons on the left side. What I find really odd is their order: the most frequently used ones should be in the more accessible positions, so I'm quite sure that the close button should be in the corner.

Something will be implemented on the right side of the windows in the future.

Let's suppose that it will happen during 10.10 development.

I think that there are two possibilities.

1 - Both RC and final releases of Lucid will have the buttons on the right. This alpha3-beta1-beta2 phase is used to experiment the new position of the buttons. This position will be back early in 10.10 development, and we will see the new functions on the right side of the windows then.

2 - Lucid is released with the buttons on the left-side, and eventually it will have the new functions on the right side (10.04.2 maybe).

I don't know wich would be the best, because I don't know the new functions.

Mark - how about you moving the exiting new stuff you are going to implement to the left side, and leaving buttons to the right? :) or is the menu going to be the obstacle then?

Why is the right upper corner so important? I guess it has something to do with the indication pop-ups. But LOWER right corner is also a nice place to put stuff, so you could leave the buttons on the right side and implement the new stuff in the lower right corner.

Sorry if this has suggested earlier, too many comments to dig through

Mark, I appreciate you commenting on this issue. Might I suggest that if you do want to relocate the controls to the left hand side consider at least leaving the close button on the right for this LTS release - for consistency (pretty much all tabs, multiple document interfaces etc. have the close on the right and it's quite late in the cycle to try patching everything from Ooo to Firefox to Nautilus etc.)

This is also what Ivanka suggested, and I came up with the same solution when I tried to work out where I'd put the buttons ( http://kazade.livejournal.com/4695.html ). After using it a while it's quite a nice solution, it also looks consistent between windows with all buttons and dialog/toolbox windows that only have a close button.

Next release you could then move the close button across to the left if that is what is required, but it's worth noting that if the buttons are on the left they will be directly under the hoverable "Activities" button in gnome-shell. As we don't completely know what Gnome 3 is going to bring I think making this change in an LTS, which you may need to revert, might not be the best idea.

2c

I decided to stick with the buttons on the left after the change, to see how it worked out for me. I'm still getting used to it but having the maximise to far left, I find useful, it's the easiest to locate and the button I use most. I've noticed that I don't (or haven't so far) closed any windows by mistake - conversely it's harder to close windows when I want to. Again, I'm still in the mode of learning the new position and though I no longer go over to the right with my pointer, the button order is still something I have to look at.

From an aesthetic point of view, I find the menu and control clumping to the left to be slightly too busy and have found the space on the right being blank to emphasise this. There appears to be a plan for this though so maybe it'll even out the look. Overall the Ambience and Radiance themes are really very nice. Radiance seems particularly well done in comparison to a number of other dark themes I've used. The palette in Ambience seems to work well.

People don't like change, I guess. It'll be interesting to see the reaction to Gnome Shell.

This change does not really affect me, the only thing I find wrong with this
decision is that ubuntu users where not told about any of the changes which
would happen, and had to find it out themselves from the alpha release :(

On 16 March 2010 09:52, meborc <email address hidden> wrote:

> Mark - how about you moving the exiting new stuff you are going to
> implement to the left side, and leaving buttons to the right? :) or is
> the menu going to be the obstacle then?
>
> Why is the right upper corner so important? I guess it has something to
> do with the indication pop-ups. But LOWER right corner is also a nice
> place to put stuff, so you could leave the buttons on the right side and
> implement the new stuff in the lower right corner.
>
> Sorry if this has suggested earlier, too many comments to dig through
>
> --
> [light-theme] please revert the order of the window controls back to
> "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/532633
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
> Artwork Team, which is a direct subscriber.
>
> Status in “light-themes” package in Ubuntu: Triaged
> Status in “metacity” package in Ubuntu: Confirmed
>
> Bug description:
> Please centre the window title like in previous Human theme, and also
> re-order the window controls in classic order, positioned on the right side
> (menu - title - minimize, maximize close).
>
> ==== Workaround ====
> To revert to old layout, enter in terminal:
> $ gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string
> "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
>
> --OR--
>
> Use this PPA: https://launchpad.net/~stownsend42/+archive/light-themes<https://launchpad.net/%7Estownsend42/+archive/light-themes>
> This option will also fix the graphical appearance of the buttons.
>
> ==== Overview ====
> Canonical design team leader - "Those pesky buttons" - 2010-03-10
> http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281
>
> Mark Shuttleworth's reply (on this bug report) - 2010-03-15
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/110
>
>
>
>

--
--Louis Taylor--
http://louistaylor.wordpress.com/

Mark your answer makes no sense at all. IF you decide to add something new on the right side in 10.10, then switch the buttons in 10.10, and people will get use to that much quicker, 'cause they will see WHY you did that. If the change is in 10.04, it will just look like a nonsense decision, but it actually IS nonsense.

Do you really think people can better get used to something that isn't there and makes their life harder, than actually seeing why the change is there? I don't need 6 months to get used to something useful, nobody does. If the change has a sense, you get used in a day. But it 10.04 it has no sense, at all.

I was thinking the same as Diff Handy: What will be of Gnome Shell? All this works would be on vain because Gnome 3.0 it's at the corner. For my part I really love the standard Gnome 2.28, and I've used Windows, KDE2, KDE3 and Gnome 1. I must say the Gnome "classical" interface is the best there is (resembling the old MacOS Classic). I don't like this layout, and I don't like the Gnome Shell.

That's why in the GNU/Linux world we have choice... and so many desktops systems.

"The default position of the window controls will remain the left,
throughout beta1. We're interested in data which could influence the
ultimate decision. There are good reasons both for the change, and
against them, and ultimately the position will be decided based on what
we want to achieve over time."

What are these reasons you are aluding to? Don't you think that impacting your entire community requires an actual explanation? You owe it to your community to not leave them in the dark about force feeding gigantic user impacting changes such as this.

"Moving everything to the left opens up the space on the right nicely,
and I would like to experiment in 10.10 with some innovative options
there. It's much easier to do that if we make this change now. I
appreciate that it's an emotive subject, and apologise for the fact that
I haven't been responding in detail to every comment - I'm busy moving
house this week. But the design team is well aware of the controversy,
your (polite) comments and more importantly *data* are very welcome and
will help make the best decision."

This is a very silly argument, and I really struggle to believe that you wrote this. Leaving everything on the right opens the space to the left just as well, so this explanation for this change makes absolutely no logical sense. Why can't Canonical / Ubuntu team experiment with the space on the left? I don't really see any actual value in the decision or your statement here in support of it.

"When we have a celebrity bug report like this, it's a real exercise for
our values of communication, civility, and ubuntu. Thank you to those
who have pointed to the code of conduct when things get heated. And
thanks even more to those who FELT heated but didn't let it show :-)"

You shouldn't need "celebrity bug reports" because you should be working with the community and making sure they are aware of and approve of changes like this. Have you forgotten that Ubuntu is supposed to be a community distribution, because at face value it seems you have.

I suppose you and canonical will do whatever it is you want to do with this, but just remember that the community asked you to leave it alone and you and your company chose to ignore them.

Thanks for reading.

-Fewt

I'm getting the feeling that most on this bug report did not read Marks full comments.
He states in comment 110
" The default position of the window controls will remain the left,
throughout beta1."
He and other Ubuntu devs had said this is the way its going to be and no changes are considered at this time.
I am against moving them to the left side. There are a lot more right handed people than left handed. I don't recall the percentage facts but i think left ==12% but don't recall.
I also suggest that being civil is the best way to suggest change or not. I have seen a few or more posts that are "heated" and this is not the best way to get something changed/not changed.

Hm, I am left-handed but I cannot use the window controls on the left side - it is just weird and extremely awkward even for a left-handed guy..
Cheers, Eddie

The buttons definitely need to stay on the right, or at least have an option to switch between instead of just changing your theme. I have to use Windows at work and have to use it for a lot of games and such. Switching between where my window controls are in each OS will suck. PLEASE keep the controls on the right!

two things:

1. i'm left handed and driving the mouse with the right hand, i think lots of left-handed people do that

2. this will make wine applications look even more out of place, also chrome has the problem. for wine i think it's more or less unfixable. but i understand that wine is not really a high priority for canonical.

(ok it seems wine can use standard window titlebar nowadays so i take that back...)

theres no need to change the buttons to the left until 10.10. For God's sake - it's an LTS release, not an experimental joke.

"Moving everything to the left opens up the space on the right nicely,
and I would like to experiment in 10.10 with some innovative options
there."
— Mark Shuttleworth
Is the plan to move windows' menus and then most menubars away from right under the close button? Even then, in my opinion this experiment's results are worthless without some real statistical data regarding participants' mouse pointer movements before AND after the titlebar change.

I agree that this is a great communicational challenge though. :)

As far as I understand this was all under wraps right up to the freeze - zero user consultation.

What happened to consistency? Perhaps one should focus on getting the desktop experience nice and solid instead of changing the desktop search engine, messaging client, window buttons, photo manager, music manager, and background image every single time.

Thanks for your attention

Mark mentions data collection - is there somewhere central where this is happening? There is data already spread all over various forums, blogs etc

I am agree with that decision what Canonical took. I noticed I am faster with the left-option (mouseway) and it's really nice looking. Why I didn't noticed it before? But true, it's really better. Now we know too that it was made for a special reason... so I am ignoring all words against and hope the first plan can continuing straight.

justmy2cents

This "bug" desn't affect me at all. Actually, this "bug" makes me very happy.

I use Mac OS X a lot, so I'm used to having these buttons on the left side. I also use Ubuntu and I always change the layout so the buttons are on the left side in my Ubuntu-installs. I only use Mac OS X and Ubuntu (with Ubuntu having these buttons on the left), but I don't use Windows at all, so I'm completely used to having these buttons on the left.

Why are there so many people who don't want to have these buttons on the left? Just use it for a few weeks and you're completely used to having the buttons on the left.

Why should these buttons have to be on the right? Why should Ubuntu be like Windows? Why should it be wrong to place the buttons on the left side like on Mac OS X. I'm really happy the appearance of Ubuntu is more and more changing to the appearance of Mac OS X, instead of the appearance of Windows.

Moving the buttons from the right side to the left side was a great decission and I really hope it won't be changed back, because of the negative comments. Those who are complaining just have to try it a few weeks and they'll be completely used to having the controls on the left side. Please Canonical, just release Ubuntu 10.04 and the future releases with the buttons on the left.

Emmanuel Touzery wrote 7 hours ago:
"1. i'm left handed and driving the mouse with the right hand, i think lots of left-handed people do that

2. this will make wine applications look even more out of place, also chrome has the problem. for wine i think it's more or less unfixable. but i understand that wine is not really a high priority for canonical."

1. Completely offtopic: I'm right handed, but half of the time I'm driving the mouse with the left hand. I can use a mouse with my right hand and with my left hand, so to prevent me from getting RSI, I drive the mouse with my right hand for a few hours and then drive the mouse with my left hand.

2. Google Chrome is no problem. You can configure Google Chrome to use the title bar of the window manager, instead of it's own title bar. It's in the preferences, under the tab called Personal (or something like that).
WINE shouldn't be of any priority. Yes, I'm completely against the use of WINE, but that's completely offtopic.

Now this revelation I've found to be intriguing. I spoke of muscle memory before in my previous comment having using operating systems with the controls always on the right Min > Max > Close.

I have been using Lucid with the metacity changes for almost two weeks. Now, while at work using Windows based machines, I have found myself consistently moving the mouse to the upper left instead of the right. The arguments of trained behaviour are quickly over turned, at least in my case. I have also not received any complaints from my wife, 16, 10, and 8 year old daughters. Old habits can be broken relatively fast. Thanks again and it's a much welcomed change.

I wanted to throw my voice out there as one saying "not in an LTS".

This was an unexpected change which I promptly reverted.

To reply to #146, the issue is not being like Mac or Windows (though if I had to pick, I'd pick Windows because it makes evangelism easier--much larger base of Windows users to convert) so much as it is being like Ubuntu. And previous versions of Ubuntu have not been like this. In the past few releases, I've seen unjustified, abrupt, and awkward changes in common workflows like shutting down the system (removing the shutdown option from the System menu), restarting X (the removal of Ctrl+Alt+Backspace functionality), and now window manipulation. Because of the former I've now installed Mint's menu because I couldn't find a way to change it back. And, again, I promptly reverted the latter.

All of these changes have yielded no discernible usability gain, and as a commenter above said, to make a change in the most common of users' workflows requires not just a good reason but a great one. There has to be some tangible benefit.

If this change makes another later one easier, do them both at the same time so we can see what the grand scheme is. Otherwise it's just an unwanted interruption and another thing to learn for those of us stuck in a Windows [corporate] world by day. I suspect this change alone might lead people to check out Mint if implemented in the final release of Lucid.

"Why should it be wrong to place the buttons on the left side like on Mac OS X."

It isn't on the left side like Mac OS X. It's on the left side unlike Mac OS X.

Here are some key differences:

* On Mac OS X, the close button is still the outside button, even though the controls are on the left.

* Mac OS X has always had controls on the left. They didn't suddenly move there in Snow Leopard.

* Mac OS X has a universal toolbar, so the window controls aren't bunched up with the menu items.

It's not just about right v. left. It's about an arbitrary change midstream that has no benefit. It's about OS X having other design decisions (not implemented in Lucid) that make a left-side control work.

Hi,

I strongly disagree with this change in ubuntu 10.04.

Most of the time i use windows at work.
It will be very confusing to see the three controls on the left, and the
next day on the right and so on.

The more ubuntu looks like windows, the more (new) people will give it
a try.

In my opinion, this is a very, very bad move.....

heian

I don't think anyone's purposes are served by approaching this as an "or" question and dwelling on personal and pseudo-logical reasons for supporting one form or another. Some people like the previous Windows-style setup; others are fond of the left, OSX-like orientation.

As we've seen from the workaround, this issue can be addressed and changed very simply with the modification of a single key. Why not simply make this an option, just a radio button in the course of the setup or even upgrade procedures? The customizability is, itself, a selling point, a point of differentiation for Ubuntu as compared to other OSes.

This shouldn't be "LEFT BAD, RIGHT GOOD" or vice versa- just give the end user the *option* of how they want their UI to work, and don't change that default without consulting the user. As Google so recently learned (Buzz...), it's far better to allow users the option to Opt-In to new or changed functionality than to make assumptions.

"I don't think anyone's purposes are served by approaching this as an 'or' question and dwelling on personal and pseudo-logical reasons for supporting one form or another. Some people like the previous Windows-style setup; others are fond of the left, OSX-like orientation."

Well, as I explained before, the left orientation is not OS X-like. It's not just a simple matter of left and right, not to mention the button order is all messed up.

"As we've seen from the workaround, this issue can be addressed and changed very simply with the modification of a single key. Why not simply make this an option, just a radio button in the course of the setup or even upgrade procedures? The customizability is, itself, a selling point, a point of differentiation for Ubuntu as compared to other OSes."

Ubuntu is supposed to have one application per task and, more importantly, sane defaults. Yes, customizability is part of the appeal of a Linux distro, but the sane defaults should also be a selling point. So, yeah, put the controls back on the right as they were and then have a simple radio button for people who want it on the left to put it on the left.

>
> Ubuntu is supposed to have one application per task and, more
> importantly, sane defaults. Yes, customizability is part of the appeal
> of a Linux distro, but the sane defaults should also be a selling point.
> So, yeah, put the controls back on the right as they were and then have
> a simple radio button for people who want it on the left to put it on
> the left.

I agree (well, I always agree with the aysiu :D).

I like the rationale behind the new position of buttons. In fact, I prefer
it over the conventional one. However, many people won't. Many can say that
it's not so hard to learn, but people still freak out. When a new user
debates with himself whether or not he's going to keep using Ubuntu, he may
even consider the window button order as a factor for deciding.

UX wise, the new window button order may be best for people who aren't used
to any window button order. However, the small UX benefits of this new
window button order may not justify the bad press Ubuntu is going to get
because of this.

#150:

Ubuntu is Ubuntu. It isn't a Mac-OS and it isn't a Windows-OS. It hasn't to be similiar with any Operating Systems like Android, Win, Mac, BeOs, ... The most Peoples comes from Windows and if it isn't the same they will return to Windows is a bad and old argument. If I install another OS I know that have to be different... if I start my Computer and it's only Ubuntu installed or I choose it with Grub, so I know that I am starting a own-kind-working Operating System. We talk only about the buttons, but Gnome is different in behavior, like Mac, Windows, KDE etc. haves different functionalities in their usabilities-mechanisms. The arguments against that try to be reasonable, but in the end they aren't. Nobody says that Gimp has to work similar as PhotoShop, because in his work he is working with it. Linux (Gnome) is different to the rest and Ubuntu a little more... but that is not a bug, it's a pretty nice feature! ,)

Well the situation is obvious. The community has in these bugreports
responded with a lot of valid arguments with pros and cons on an
unannounced and appearently irreversible issue. Canonical until now
stated vary vague that it has to do with some experiments due for Ubuntu
10.10. So on this day March 17th 2010 we all might know where we stand.

Besides that, the community that has responded is not a representative
cross-cut of all Ubuntu users. So I fear the chain reaction after April
forthcoming. How many common Ubuntu users are there working with Windows
as well? How many Ubuntu users do not have a steep learning curve?
Ubuntu was promoted with "Ubuntu for everyone" and it was!

What I sadly see in this moment is this. Lucid testers already
frustrated about the stability of the current Alpha3 ("the worst Ubuntu
Alpha3 in years") now aware that 10.04 will be an experimental LTS will
end their efforts with testing and bug reporting. So the "going down"
has begun.

Hello.
With the buttons to the left I see 2 main problems:
1 .- You can close / minimize / maximize when you really wanted click into the menu.
2 .- The window has too much "weight" of objects in his left, and nothing on your right. I do not see the window compensated.

As Mark says, if you foresee an innovative use this area to the right, then I prefer the buttons on the left, in other case, not.
A greeting.

I think this bug report outlived its usefulness. It seems (sadly) that no more information will be given from the developer side and the state can be considered "won't fix" (for better or for worse).

Furthermore, new people arriving here will (understandably) have no patience to read the entire thread and just repeat arguments that were previously said before.

I think it would be better to move further discussions and request for info to mailing lists and reopen this bug only when the situation has changed at least a little bit (ex: further changes in the position or some new, concrete info about the mysterious possibilities for the right side).

I think the only thing that is keeping this report alive is the hope that Mark might appear once again.

What really sad is, is the fact that peoples won't changes. For example in my country (Germany) there are many peoples they don't like changes in customs... they don't like new versions of programs or new versions of an OS. For that reason still are many peoples who still uses Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6. But think about that it's a absolutely nonsense.
If the buttons are on the right or on the left, the most persons still stay with XP or old versions of Ubuntu etc. Newcomers don't watch there the buttons are, they look more if their hardware runs out the box or they can be satisfied with offered applications ... all escorted with a good stability. ... we put so much importance in something what is quite irrelevant in the end.

# 155:
I am running Alpha 3 and it's very good for be an Alpha. I really don't know what that "going down" means? It's the best Ubuntu I have seen right now. ;)

"I would like to experiment in 10.10 with some innovative options there"

it's been 1 day using the left design buttons order, and it have been terrible (and i'm not a newbie). it would be easier to get use to it if the pain of making this change would give me something in exchange.

i mean, if i got new functionalities or make my life easier, or at least know when and how would i be benefit from it, then the change would be reasonable.

change it just for "experiment" make no sense to me.

# 158: I thought only loud; but my opinion is without analytic base and yes, for many peoples it's relevant, probably, and I have to respect it. Sorry for speaking loud my emotions and thinkings at that moment.

Having the buttons on the left is not just aesthetic it is a functional flaw... I attempt to click on File or Edit and accidentally close a window I am working in. Ubuntu is for humans not geeks... correct? Why would a functional change such as this be kicked down? Why would it be automatic. Will the gconf fix work going forward or will another subsequent update revert the style back? I do believe reading through the comments that the users do not like the change. This is X not Mac.

Aside from that if the attempt was to make it Mac-ish the order on a Mac is close:minimize:maximize
(looking at my mac)

I've been working with linux since 1996... I love linux distros because they are different. I love them because you can customize. I love Ubuntu because over the years working with other distros I have learned much but do not want to 'have' to customize for a functional system. Please do not break the UI.

I know to some it may seem a 'very' small issue but some of us have grown very frustrated with the location of the window buttons. I did just now (I was waiting for the official fix) use the gconf fix posted earlier, thank you for that. Again, I am using Ubuntu so I do not have to customize for a well configured and functional system.

It works out of the box. Which is perhaps a major factor for enterprise acceptance. In the enterprise this item will most likely get reverted... so... I leave it in your capable hands.

I believe that more is less and less is more.

If we clutter the Right and Left with unnecessary buttons... we are doomed. Most of Ubuntu changes doesn't comply with the Gnome HIG. If Canonical want's to in roads with the UI and "human" interfaces it going to be vital to adhere to the Gnome HIG or, in the worst case, write it's own.

I only see chaos in the latest lucid UI, the touchpad middle click problem, the light-theme lack of contrast, OSD notify behavior, the new GDM with lack of customization and now this... the windows control disorder. All of this are good on paper (I really liked it on the blueprints) but half baked on the current release.

I can't believe people are getting so uptight about this. I switched my 9.10 box to use the latest themes that will go into Lucid and then switched the buttons to the left. Must have taken me all of about ten minutes to get used to them, and I have been using Gnome for nearly a decade. I really like them on the left, they work well, and I agree they do leave a lot more room on the right to do something with.

If you are really that bothered about it , it takes about two seconds to switch them the right.

Keep them on the left, I like the change.

Nick

Well, now I've switched to AwesomeWM and I no longer have any buttons. Are you really intending to make Ubuntu an OS for geeks like me?;)

Nick, if you like them on the, you should change them to the left. But /by default/ these buttons should be on the right for the many, many reasons already discussed on Brainstorm, Planet Ubuntu, Ubuntuforums and this very bug report.

Ubuntu. Linux for human beings. I hope that remains the case, despite reports like this one. Funnily enough, I notice that this particular slogan is no longer present on the Ubuntu.com website.

Hey guys,
 Well this is just another , friendly . complaint about the buttons on the left of the window title bar!!
I would like to preface this with the statement made by mark shuttleworth:

"Moving everything to the left opens up the space on the right nicely"

 Mr. Shuttleworth...with all due respect..that statement is a bit "wobbly-eyed" :)
moving the buttons left or right will open the opposite side of the title bar equally,, I see no advantage to opening the right side of the title bar over keeping the left side opened!
  Further more...I think it would be more appropriate to have a tick box...to change positions of the buttons...for left and right handed people... to have the buttons on the left for "suspicious æsthetic" reasons is no more than a lack of creativilty..
I say that because it has always been easy to switch locations of the buttons in gconf...at least as far as I can remember.
So the reasons for this are , at best, un-creative and kind of a smack in the face for those of us who have used gnome ... pronounced...."nome" with silent "G" by the way... for some time.
  I suggest ..again... a tick box or several options for buttons on the left...buttons on the right...and buttons in the center...
in fact a small grouping of options..easily accessible by the user to change locations of not only the buttons but also the title on the title bar itself.

coz

On 15/03/10 23:42, Pablo Quirós wrote:
> It'd have been nice if this comment had been made some time ago,
> together with a deep reasoning on the concrete changes that are in mind.
>
> We are supposed to be a community, we all use Ubuntu and contribute to
> it, and we deserve some respect regarding these kind of decisions. We
> all make Ubuntu together, or is it a big lie?

We all make Ubuntu, but we do not all make all of it. In other words, we
delegate well. We have a kernel team, and they make kernel decisions.
You don't get to make kernel decisions unless you're in that kernel
team. You can file bugs and comment, and engage, but you don't get to
second-guess their decisions. We have a security team. They get to make
decisions about security. You don't get to see a lot of what they see
unless you're on that team. We have processes to help make sure we're
doing a good job of delegation, but being an open community is not the
same as saying everybody has a say in everything.

This is a difference between Ubuntu and several other community
distributions. It may feel less democratic, but it's more meritocratic,
and most importantly it means (a) we should have the best people making
any given decision, and (b) it's worth investing your time to become the
best person to make certain decisions, because you should have that
competence recognised and rewarded with the freedom to make hard
decisions and not get second-guessed all the time.

It's fair comment that this was a big change, and landed without
warning. There aren't any good reasons for that, but it's also true that
no amount of warning would produce consensus about a decision like this.

> If you want to tell us
> that we are all part of it, we want information, and we want our opinion
> to be decisive.
>

No. This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome. But
we are not voting on design decisions.

Mark

"you don't get to second-guess their decisions"
"You don't get to see a lot of what they see unless you're on that team."
"being an open community is not the same as saying everybody has a say in everything."
"There aren't any good reasons for that"
"we are not voting on design decisions."

So, its your ball, it isn't a community ball and if we don't like it we shouldn't use your distribution because it belongs to you, your team, and no one else.

I get it now.

Thanks for the clarification, and all of these great one-liners.

I would like to add a feedback about the buttons on the left.

Everytime I look for close button on right and I have to force myself to find it in left position I feel an anti-instinctive feeling that make me sad. Really! When I revert it on right if feel better.

Just like that times I tryied to drive in London (I'm Italian). It's a disorienting feeling that you need a lot of training to get used to.

Probably with months of training I would get used to it, just like if I move in London after months I would get used to driving to the left.

But If I move in London I may find some benefit in driving so maybe the motivation could help in getting used to. I can hardly imagine at moment a motivation to force myself on using window button on left.

Regards

I don't think many people thought this was a vote. We're not voting, we're
complaining, in the only manner open to us as members of the community - in
a bug report. The problem is that no-one appears to be listening, despite
the excellent arguments against this decision.

And no-one has yet tried to counter those arguments. That's not good.

On 17 Mar 2010 22:34, "fewt" <email address hidden> wrote:

"you don't get to second-guess their decisions"

"You don't get to see a lot of what they see unless you're on that team."

"being an open community is not the same as saying everybody has a say in
everything."

"There aren't any good reasons for that"

"we are not voting on design decisions."
So, its your ball, it isn't a community ball and if we don't like it we
shouldn't use your distribution because it belongs to you, your team,
and no one else.

I get it now.

Thanks for the clarification, and all of these great one-liners.

--
[light-theme] please revert the order of the window controls back to
"menu:minimize,maximize,cl...

@fewt you're doing really play the surprised? McDonalds... you can let suggestions, feedbacks, reclamations. You go there to enjoy your hamburger, but you can't enter in the kitchen and fry your own hamburgers. You are not a kitchen-employee of that company. The same Canonical's product Ubuntu. The Ubuntu-community do a lot off stuff around that product... normally for the community than for Canonical. ,)

Does this even really help?

If I'm on the left side of the screen and really don't want to go all the way to the right, I can just click top-left, which gives me all of the options -- minimize, maximize, and close are there, as are a few not available on the right.

But why wouldn't I just go all the way to the right?

Slamming my mouse to the top-right is, after clicking where I already am, is the easiest possible actions for me to perform. (Fitts's Law, see http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html Question 3.)

To quote Mark: "it means (a) we should have the best people making any given decision" ... "the best person [...] should have that competence recognised and rewarded with the freedom to make hard decisions and not get second-guessed all the time."

You say yourself that you "should", not that you necessarily do. Perhaps the fact that your other teams do make their changes without getting such prominent push-back means that, just maybe, for this issue, you don't.

You're right; One project isn't a democracy. Popularity, though, by definition is. Is this issue more important than Bug #1?

I highly prefer keeping the old layout but if you insist on putting those buttons on the left side, at least use the same order as OSX does (close, minimize, maximize). Creating inconsistency is bad, mmkay?

It would also be nice if the graphics would not break no matter which order is used, but I guess the theme engine just doesn't allow this...

People wouldn't have to second-guess your decisions if you would simply explain the reasons for your decisions. A benevolent dictatorship goes so much better when you're transparent about the process and give rational explanations for decisions instead of just making arbitrary decisions that appear to have no usability benefits, letting the community scratch their heads and try to figure out what you were thinking, and then making vague references to wanting to experiment with the right side that gets freed up.

For more details on how you can not be a slave to the peanut gallery while also not experiencing this kind of unprecedented backlash with regard to your decisions, see this Ubuntu Forums thread post:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8978434#post8978434

I have been reading 100s of e-mails and shaking my head.

This "left, right buttons" issue is turning into a war over trifles.

The Ubuntu Developers have a right to develop Ubuntu anyway they like
(within reason).

YOU (plural) develop new themes and offer them to the users.

The users can make choices with their open-licensed *individual copy* of the
OS:

They can accept or reject any theme, any option, any choice on their own
private PCs.

There is no need to argue over individual tastes. - I like blue, you like
red, so, I make mine

blue, and you make yours red. - Ubuntu gives individuals the greatest amount
of choice of

most OSs. - I can compile my own kernel, I can create and alter themes,
boot-up,

wallpaper, screen-savers, etc., I can choose any of tens of thousands of
programs.

There are more options than most users know what to do with. -

Thank YOU for YOUR innovations and imaginations and YOUR Linux expertise!

Keep up the good work, and continue to offer us your best and newest art and
innovation.

It is YOUR right, after all, it is YOUR baby (as long as it does not turn
evil and hurts people -

leave that to Microsoft).

BavarianPH,
Ubuntu forever!

> ==== Workaround ====
> To revert to old layout, enter in terminal:
> $ gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string
> "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
>
> Use this PPA: https://launchpad.net/~stownsend42/+archive/light-themes<https://launchpad.net/%7Estownsend42/+archive/light-themes>
> This option will also fix the graphical appearance of the buttons.
>
>
>

Dear Mr. Shuttleworth & Ubuntu design team:

Now that you've reminded us, the end users, of our proper place in the pecking order, I would respectfully request that you consider adding an easy way of changing the min/max/close buttons from the left back to the right. Perhaps by providing a simple radio button choice in the Appearance Preferences.

It may seem silly to argue this much over where those buttons are, but, I must say I've been dinking with computers for over 20 years, and have been pushing my mouse up to the right-hand corner of application windows to get to the min/max/close buttons for approximately the same amount of time. The cliche "I know it like the back of my hand" applies here. I'm simply not going to spend time adapting to a new way of doing things just because the design team of one "flavor" of one Linux distro thinks it looks good.

Nor do I want to futz around with gconf-editor or add a repository every time I install Ubuntu, just to get those buttons back to where I'm accustomed.

Why should you care? Only because I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.

XDD I'm really impressed how this decision has made so many noise, they're are just buttons!! and can be changed!! so, where's the problem? that everybody is used to the buttons to the right?, well, everybody is used to other OS too

1. I agree in putting buttons to left, they're better when you're used to them (So you need to use them for a while)
2. Everybody can do what he wants, even change its position, so why bothering?

@aysiu

The problem with your Forums post is that it says "this is what really
happened" and is, in fact, quite incorrect.

Some members of the design team asked that the window controls be
grouped on the left, and presented the visualisation. So it wasn't that
I "prefer it that way". I didn't like it initially, anticipating that it
would generate a great deal of resistance. However, it does line things
up nicely for work I would like us to do in future. And the major
argument against it appears solely to be "we're used to it here", which
is important, but not overriding.

Mark

On 17/03/10 22:34, fewt wrote:
> "you don't get to second-guess their decisions"
> "You don't get to see a lot of what they see unless you're on that team."
> "being an open community is not the same as saying everybody has a say in everything."
> "There aren't any good reasons for that"
> "we are not voting on design decisions."
>
> So, its your ball, it isn't a community ball and if we don't like it we
> shouldn't use your distribution because it belongs to you, your team,
> and no one else.
>
> I get it now.
>
> Thanks for the clarification, and all of these great one-liners.
>

@fewt

There's a job waiting for you at a tabloid, if that's how you treat
commentary. Isolating snippets and using them out of context is just rude.

You can throw your toys out of the cot, but other than expressing a
personal preference, you haven't informed the discussion at all. Most
importantly, you do NOT have a say in *everything*. Anybody is welcome
to participate, and it's worth building a reputation for yourself as
being competent at something. If the community process *works*, that
competence will be rewarded with the ability to make tough decisions.

At the moment, your approach is not highlighting any particular
competence on your part, other than for aggressive and unhelpful
argument backed by a willingness to twist people's words - not something
we have a department for in Ubuntu.

Mark

I suggest one simple thing.
Move to another distribution if you don't like Mark/Canonnical's philosophy
GNU/Linux world is big enough to find the distribution that fit your needs.
Personally i don't find polite the way someone treated Mark (and at the same time Mark treated the community) but i don't use Ubuntu because Mark is a nice person.
I use Ubuntu because it rocks.
I will open gconf-editor, it's not a problem.

I'd like to add just a simple thing:
it's not easy to make every user happy...
... yes but it seems that nobody's happy.. :-D

Hi Mark. I didn't take anything out of context, those were your words, I just put quotes around them to emphasize how ridiculous they were. If that's a problem maybe you shouldn't have said them.

As for personally attacking me, well I guess when you cannot win an argument on merit, go for the jugular, right?

As for not informing the discussion I believe someone who I don't know quoted me in comment #170, so there is something to chew on. Also I seem to remember making post 133 also.

As for my competence, I just thought it was worth mentioning here that your users are backlashing against your decision, but what the hell do I know I just work on the core team of a distribution that listens and adapts to direct input from its users. I am also not the one trying to make the case for moving window controls to the left of the screen just because I like it better that way.

Aggressive? FU. Wait, that's what you are telling your community.

Nice.

/unsubscribed and no longer wasting my time with this thread OR Ubuntu.

Your welcome.

Mark, I want to ask you: What is you vision about GnomeShell? It fit's
with what you are planing? Can we see blueprints of you plans?

At first I disliked the change, now I don't care. But I must say that I
hate half baked solutions... like the new GDM (you must admit it, the
default theme is horrid). I've seen lately (since Hardy) that Canonical
is pushing half made software in it's "sane default", in the hope that
more eyeballs would lead to acceptance and better software.

Alpha and Beta testers doesn't make better software, programers do.

The success of most of the greatest software protects is because of
programing skills and good taste. That's the example of the Linux kernel
witch is based on Linus taste.

On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 08:28 +0000, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> @aysiu
>
> The problem with your Forums post is that it says "this is what really
> happened" and is, in fact, quite incorrect.
>
> Some members of the design team asked that the window controls be
> grouped on the left, and presented the visualisation. So it wasn't that
> I "prefer it that way". I didn't like it initially, anticipating that it
> would generate a great deal of resistance. However, it does line things
> up nicely for work I would like us to do in future. And the major
> argument against it appears solely to be "we're used to it here", which
> is important, but not overriding.
>
> Mark
>

Yes, Mark: flamewars aside, please ensure buttons on the left are not turning into a nightmare when GNOME Shell is used. I can confirm that reaching e.g. the icon button in the left corner of a maximized window is very likely to lead you to hit the hot corner, especially on touchpads - and even for experienced people.

It's a common practice to move the cursor to the top right corner of the screen, and then move it down to the close button of a window, instead of fighting to reach it directly. This won't work when Ubuntu switches to GNOME Shell, and reverting this after Lucid would be too bad.

Mark Shuttleworth:
> However, it does line things up nicely for work I would like us to do in future. And the major argument against it appears solely to be "we're used to it here", which is important, but not overriding.

There are many places in applications, like tabs and panels, where close buttons are on the right. Please consider Nautilus, Firefox, OpenOffice.org, all KDE applications. Consider also GNOME panel and GNOME Shell: left side for starting and opening, right side for closing session. The last sentence voices the mental model for all user interface.

This bug breaks user's habits, but also makes lack of cohesion in all user interface, so new habits will not revive.

Maybe Shuttleworth should let his Communitizer handle this, if he can't keep his cool among the very community he claims this purple OS is about? Very unbecoming to lose your temper like that. Even for a dictator.

This is a very simple matter of people who feel strongly against a change always seem to shout the loudest. I have the feeling that 99.9% of users dont feel strongly about this issue either way. That the .1% of people are just against change. Ive been using the buttons on the left side since the update of lucid a while back and it feels ok it takes about 15 minutes to get used to.

It makes sense to me that the top left hand side of the screen is to open and close apps and the top right of the screen is for my attention. So notifications are in that corner and so are the app indicators so I glance up there to check whats going on without having distractions like window management. So my immediate attention is drawn to that corner. So I like the controls on the left.

I remember more or less the same argument when Notify-OSD was put in the top right. They wanted it anywhere but there because it got in the way of the window controls and the searchbox in Firefox. Moving the window controls to the left and moving Notify-OSD slightly down fixed that complaint.

I think there will always be many chefs and not enough cooks.

Oh and just a note, quoting polls is completely useless because unless its taken from a controlled group the results are always biased. So if a random set of 100 people who use Ubuntu was polled it would be a lot more reliable than a quick question at the end of a blog post because the people who care about the issue most will always vote and most other who people who dont care wont.

@ Mark Shuttleworth

I'm happy to see how launchpad and canonical is open to personal
contribute, but it i don't understand what we can promote and what no.

We have for example ubuntu brainstorm, forum, and other ways to comment
your work, but please, you have to say at all community exactly what we can
say about the project and what we can do for canonical EXACTLY.

So if we only can release feedbacks and bugs report for canonical team without influence them, why we have to spend time to promote our ideas?

I'm happy that you Mark stay here to speak with us, but you have to clarify in every one canonical service where is the limit. And i'm talking about ubuntu brainstorming first of all.n say about the project and what we can do for canonical for

forget to say that Launchpad is a good way to integrate our support in development of application

"I have the feeling that 99.9% of users dont feel strongly about this issue either way."

"Oh and just a note, quoting polls is completely useless because unless its taken from a controlled group the results are always biased."

Are the poll results as biased as your "feelings", man? Comic stuff, that there. At least the community ran a poll. How about canonical?

Tell you what's going to happen over the next month or two. You'll have a huge portion, people like fewt and I, who will no longer be using Ubuntu, and will no longer endorse or recommend it. You'll have a huge portion of people who'll simply fork ubuntu and bring that thing back to the community, because they take the "humanity to others" thing quite seriously, and are not just in it for the buck, like Shuttleworth, who basically bastardized the true Ubuntu spirit for corporate gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29).

And then you'll be left with a dwindling group of less and less convinced fanboys. It's happened to other projects, and Canonical's put Ubuntu in a cloudified sports car in the fast lane to that very same destination.

@dariocaruso
You can contribute anywhere you can so if you can write a good bug report join the testing team.
If you can develop start contributing code and apply to be a contributing developer.
You can become a MOTU.
Just go to the irc channel of the team you want to join and ask where to start.

There are lots on non canonical employees contributing to make ubuntu better. All you have to do is apply whatever skills you have. Contributing ideas and opinions is helpful but as I said above "I think there will always be many chefs and not enough cooks."

"Are the poll results as biased as your "feelings", man? Comic stuff, that there. At least the community ran a poll. How about canonical?"

I didnt say it wasnt based on feelings I said it was useless because not everyone feels strongly enough to choose right or left because they simply dont care.

I dont think there would be a fork of ubuntu with just the window buttons moved to the other side. It takes a lot of effort to distribute software so it seems a little excessive to fork.

I believe everyone has the right to comment on the issues at hand but if you cant think up a reason against it other than
A. "Im not used to it"
B. "Its not like how windows does it"
C. Misquoting fitts law
then you shouldnt comment at all. Trolling and repeating the same reasons isnt at all helpful.

Can we please focus this bug on the actual problems? There are at least two that have been reported:
- The theme preview in the GNOME appearance panel shows the buttons on the right for these themes.
- Switching to the theme moves the buttons to the left, but switching away from the theme does not restore them to the right.

Perhaps the first problem could be fixed, and the second dealt with by having a "light-themes-right" package, or right-handed versions of the themes included in the light-themes package. Then, it's just three clicks (system->preferences->Appearance, Theme, Ambiance-Right or Radiance-Right) to the old way instead of a command-line workaround that might scare new users.

"We all make Ubuntu, but we do not all make all of it. In other words, we
delegate well. We have a kernel team, and they make kernel decisions.
You don't get to make kernel decisions unless you're in that kernel
team. You can file bugs and comment, and engage, but you don't get to
second-guess their decisions. We have a security team. They get to make
decisions about security. You don't get to see a lot of what they see
unless you're on that team. We have processes to help make sure we're
doing a good job of delegation, but being an open community is not the
same as saying everybody has a say in everything."

First of all, thank you to take the time to answer personally. I'm sure lots of people, including me, appreciates that.

Don't take me wrong, I think a meritocracy is a good way of doing things, but, as you say, there have to be processes to make sure the delegated job is properly done -- and there's where the community has a part. In the end, it is us, users, who judge wether something is good or bad. This is the same in any bussiness: consumers, in the end, decide. And if there is a majority of users, or consumers, who thinks something is wrong, then the delegation you where talking about is not working properly.

The new design team has made really good changes to the system, and the new branding is really good. That said, I think they've shown some inexperience. A good design team would have done 1) a good reasoning on the need for this change. A basic rule of usability is to be easy and predictable; when you are going to change something like this, you have to be sure that it is *really* for the better. 2) Usability tests. As I said, it's a big change with a great impact, and you shouldn't just "try" something, you have to experiment with real users and good tests, to gets sure the decision is the best. 3) Get the opinions of the final user. In the end, the change is something to make his life better. If he doesn't like it, it has no sense at all.

If you accept an advise, I think what you are lacking in the design team is an usability expert... or maybe there is? the point is that the design team should take usability more into account.

I've read someone who, regarding this matter, said that he is tired of designers telling him how he should use his computer. And he is right. I think you are wrong in one thing: you say this is not a democracy, but, in the end, it is. Design is a democracy. If users don't like a design, if they are unhappy with it, or it makes their life worse, it has no sense at all. Design is for users, and if they don't like it, it's failing.

And I'd like to comment on other issue as well: openness. You said that only the teams responsible for something have all the information on that matter; I don't see the reason, and it goes strongly about my sense of a community. Openness is good for everyone; it's one of the strengths of free software, and one of the pilars of a community. If reasoning of the decisions taken is closed, and plans for the future are hidden, the community is weakened and it will be much more difficult for us to feel part of the project. Lots of communities, and most of the information in thi...

I believe everyone has the right to comment on the issues at hand but if you cant think up a reason against it other than
A. "Im not used to it"
B. "Its not like how windows does it"
C. Misquoting fitts law
then you shouldnt comment at all. Trolling and repeating the same reasons isnt at all helpful.

A. where in this thread did I say that?
B. where in this thread did I say that?
C. where in this thread did I do that?

Let me tell you something, my friend. If lies and backtracking are the only way for you to defend this fiasco,
then probably it is you who is the troll.

You ask for reasons against moving the window buttons? How about reasons FOR it? other than Shuttleworth's vague hand-waving at experiments for 10.10?

The fact that requests for valid reasons for this drastic change is perpetually met with such childish defensiveness, just goes to show that there wasn't any "design team" who came up with this. Order from above. In true dictator fashion.

@Pablo Quiros, I wish YOU were the Community Manager. Excellent post.

@dayo read the second paragraph https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/188
All the 3 reasons I quoted were mentioned multiple times everywhere.

Initially I didn't like the design change either. But looking at other design improvements, I decided to forget (forgive may be a strong word) about the decision. previously I used Sidux and that came only with KDE. Since I like gnome I had to install gnome.

I guess its just 3 clicks to change the button placement / change to a different theme. I can see a lot of other people already released "Radiance-right" themes.

Its just matter of time...People...Dont get too personal...

This thread would be shorter, better and more serious for the design team if we 'switch of' "emotions" finally.

# 194 is a back to topic and has interesting points. The design team needs good points and facts for take good decisions. Stay by topic is the most helpful thing that we can do.

One solution is maybe a left(default)/right-switcher somewhere in the preferences. ,)

On 18/03/10 14:01, dariocaruso wrote:
> We have for example ubuntu brainstorm, forum, and other ways to comment
> your work, but please, you have to say at all community exactly what we can
> say about the project and what we can do for canonical EXACTLY.
>

Brainstorm is great, and lots of good comes out of it. There are many
cases where knowing what lots of people think, or creating a forum for
*anybody* to publish their ideas, is useful.

My point to fewt is simply that there are also many areas where we
explicitly don't run things by vote or consensus.

Ubuntu is plenty big enough that there is an area where anybody can make
themselves an expert, take on responsibility, and lead. But it's also
big enough that if we try to make everybody feel like they can weigh in
on *every* decision, we'll grind to a halt.

This is a flashpoint, but most decisions are not as contentious as this
one. I'm backing this decision because I think it's the right one in the
long term. It may be right, it may be wrong, but I have a mandate to
take the decision. The same is true of our kernel lead, and our
community governance leads. They are fallible (I certainly am) but they
are nevertheless empowered to take decisions.

Mark

On 18/03/10 14:07, dayo wrote:
> ... are not just in it for the buck, like Shuttleworth, who
> basically bastardized the true Ubuntu spirit for corporate gain
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29).
>

Time will tell. I feel quite good about the contribution I'm making, but
you're entitled to disagree. I'm sure you have a complete perspective on
the many things that I do, and therefor are in a good position to make
that judgment.

Mark

On 18/03/10 14:31, Pablo Quirós wrote:
> I've read someone who, regarding this matter, said that he is tired of
> designers telling him how he should use his computer. And he is right. I
> think you are wrong in one thing: you say this is not a democracy, but,
> in the end, it is. Design is a democracy. If users don't like a design,
> if they are unhappy with it, or it makes their life worse, it has no
> sense at all. Design is for users, and if they don't like it, it's
> failing.
>

Yes, design is a democracy in the sense that users vote with their feet
- they choose the products that work well for them. If we fail badly
with this, or any other piece, they will go somewhere else, and we lose.

Look, I understand this is risky. In my judgment, it's worth the risk.
Being able to tackle risky things is one of the things that gives us the
chance to catch up to the big guys, and beat them. That doesn't mean we
should be cavalier, but I'm not going to shy away from an opportunity to
do something much better now just because Microsoft did something a
particular way 20 years ago.

Mark

I personally have found the change from left to right strange but easier for me to use...but that may be the way my brain works

Off-Topic... who cares now!

@ Mark:

Lucid Lynx is frightening good and nice-looking. Microsoft will spend you another travel to the space for free; better said to the moon, because they wish you out of the planet earth after the release surely! Hold the course ... Bug [1]. :D

@Mark You honestly feel that this change of windows button to the left is best for Ubuntu? And the best time to make such change is in an LTS? Personally I am less concerned about the windows way or the apple way but rather that whatever usability decision the design team make should have usability impact on the users. Left for me There are many things that needs fixing on the Ubuntu desktop usability wise and windows button are just not one of them. But that is just me. The way I see this not one person had complained or felt that they was a problem with the window button being on the right. Even the people who claim to prefer it on the left or adjust to it that way many of them never had a problem with it being on the right. All I can say is that it would be nice if things like usability and design should be open more to the community. Canonical always have their veto but at least the community would have a sense of participation.

One thing I would love to hear is how the design team hopes to get round issues of breaking consistency with the rest of the Linux desktop. That is a issue that would need to be addressed. Many people on Ubuntu would be using emerald compiz window decorator will that be patched too to respect this new window button replacement?. others would be using openbox. some of us also have kde installed on our system. How is the design team going to get round the issue of consistency which if not sorted would lead to bigger usability issues than was created by the window buttons being on the right.

Also would this window button redesign be implemented in other ubuntu variants like kubuntu, Xubuntu, lubuntu? Because if design team is telling us that this change is in fact the best thing then surely there wouldn't wont to exclude ubuntu variant from the best usability experience.

Maybe there should be a check button that asks the user way he would like his windows button placed. (but that too would add more level of complexity to the install process and make it less human friendly)

Personally as a sysadmin in charge of a university where Ubuntu is used solely by all our staffs, students, and faculties. This change should never have come in an LTS release (if it most be made at all) and in my humble opinion is just a solution looking for a problem. It doesn't in anyway increase my workflow or that of my users and having to resort to gconf command or installing extra ppa everytime I install ubuntu for my users (and I do that alot) is not something am looking forward to. But then maybe am not as long sighted as Mark.

Mark Shuttleworth :
> That doesn't mean we should be cavalier, but I'm not going to shy away from an opportunity to do something much better now just because Microsoft did something a particular way 20 years ago.

It is something more than Microsoft whim. In the West culture we are reading from left to right, from top to bottom. These are natural starting and ending points. So, the most convenient place for close button is a bottom right corner of window. That's why big buttons (Close, Apply, OK etc.) in bottom right corner of windows works so well.

Top right is the worst place for close button. Think of moving close button to the top right or even bottom right.

Edit: Top *left* is the worst place for close button.

I was sceptical of this change at first. But having only used lucid since the alpha 3 release, I've grown quite fond of the current button position, on the left hand side of the screen.
I would encourage users to be patient and to give lucid (now beta 1) some solid, rigorous use (not 5 minutes as virtualized install) before making a decision and voicing an opinion.
While I understand that many people have put forth this effort and continue to disagree with this design choice, I have been surprised with the large number of knee-jerk reactions to this change.

Time will tell. I feel quite good about the contribution I'm making, but
you're entitled to disagree. I'm sure you have a complete perspective on
the many things that I do, and therefor are in a good position to make
that judgment.

Mark

-----

Sarcasm isn't going to help your issue here. There are a lot of very excellent
points and perspectives all up and down this thread, against putting the buttons on the left.
If you value Canonical's credibility at all, then your line about "We're interested in data which
could influence the ultimate decision." won't be just transparent placating. Hopefully, for your sake
and the community's sake, you'll follow through on this.

It's saddening that you apparently do not have any problem whatsoever using an LTS release for UI/UX experimentation.
Why not have a testing branch like Debian does? But of course, you're too busy trying to beat companies
on who's radars Canonical doesn't even appear. It's quite bizarre.

It baffles me to no end, that you would get so pouty about the community's reactions to
such a monumental change in UI/UX. We're not all fanboys and praise singers, you know? Deal with it.

@ Mark Shuttleworth I think what @Pablo Quirós meant was that the aim of design and usability is to make the life of the user easier, to improve their workflow hence their productivity. If the design fails to achieve this (and only the user can tell) then that design has failed and reason be restored.

>Yes, design is a democracy in the sense that users vote with their feet
>they choose the products that work well for them. If we fail badly
>with this, or any other piece, they will go somewhere else, and we lose
Are you saying that those who think that the new design of windows button placement does not suit them, should take a walk and find another distro? You might ask how can we know if users are happy with this design choice without first trying it and see from their feedbacks if it helped make their lives easier? True but you really don't want to perform such a test on an LTS which is the version of Ubuntu that is adopted by enterprise users. Even though I feel this change is a solution looking for a problem. Still I am not against giving it a try in one of the in between LTS releases and using the feedback generated as input on whether such a move would benefit the user or not.

>Look, I understand this is risky. In my judgment, it's worth the risk.

 Serious Mark you really think making this risky decisions for an LTS release is worth it? seriously?
>Being able to tackle risky things is one of the things that gives us the
>chance to catch up to the big guys, and beat them.
One way to catch the big boys is ask what their secret is. and one of it is consistency. Windows as pretty much maintained the same look since windows 95, they just added more polish and more superlatives but its essentially the same start-menu, windows management buttons, the same task-manager hence a user knows what to expect from a newer version of windows. This is one of the reason why windows is very popular many people know what to expect and how to find their way around. Even with all its flaws Microsoft or Apple wont wake up one morning and decide their were going to change the location of their window button placement its just not something you want to do for a serious OS. You dont experiment too much with a serious OS. look at redhat or Sled the big players in the linux desktop They don't experiment with their users. They try to keep things consistent I am not saying Ubuntu should be that conservative or enterprise focussed, we can always maintain a balance.. keep the desktop consistent and the underthehood stuffs should do the magic design thats and design and usability decisions should really improve the usability and workflow of users. and not force them to have to relearn how to use their desktop. Consistency is the biggest problem of free desktop we always move the post to many times.

 Whatever decision the usability team makes the deciding factor is how the user reacts to its, whether its makes their usage of ubuntu easier or adds to their problem. You raised the issue of the Kernel team (among other teams) If they make a radical change to the Ubuntu kernel which impacts negatively on the user. You would get the same backlash you are getting now...

"The problem with your Forums post is that it says "this is what really
happened" and is, in fact, quite incorrect.

Some members of the design team asked that the window controls be
grouped on the left, and presented the visualisation. So it wasn't that
I "prefer it that way". I didn't like it initially, anticipating that it
would generate a great deal of resistance. However, it does line things
up nicely for work I would like us to do in future."

No, Mark, the real problem is that is what the public perception of what happened is. And that matters as much as, if not more than, what really happened. The first indication we had of any part of the decision-making process was you saying in an IRC chat that you do prefer it that way. You didn't say you were initially opposed to it.

Perhaps instead of focusing on minor factual clarifications, you can focus on the bit about how things could have gone? I fully respect that you're self-appointed benevolent dictator for life. I fully support your prerogative in making decisions without opening it up to a vote. It does behoove you, as a leader of an open source project that touts itself as a community-based distro, to have a certain kind of transparency in your process.

You can even be secretive about it while also being transparent. A simple Wiki entry or Blueprint (or even just a quick email on a mailing list) that goes along these lines "Lucid alpha users will see a small change in the button order with this latest update. I know this will take a little getting used to, but rest assured we on the design team have a good reason for changing it up, and you'll be excited to see what we put on the freed-up right side. We aren't opening this up to a voting process, but if you have legitimate concerns about the move, please let us know, and we will take them into consideration." Would that have been so difficult to do?

"And the major
argument against it appears solely to be "we're used to it here", which
is important, but not overriding.

Mark"

Mark, you're a busy guy, so I know you don't read all forum posts and brainstorms, but maybe you can take a second look at the comments in this very bug report. Comment #71 has quite an extensive list of arguments against the change, and they aren't just "we're used to it here":
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/71

I'm hoping you just skimmed over and missed that and that you aren't being deliberately obtuse. I have a lot of respect for what you've done these past five years with Ubuntu. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Mark, if you'd let someone entirely unrelated plunk an oar in for a minute, I think "However, it does line things
up nicely for work I would like us to do in future." is at the nub of this. You've said a couple of times that the idea is to free up the right hand corner for Other Stuff You Will Put There Later, which is a valid idea. What I don't get, though, is why you think it makes sense to do the freeing-up before you've got around to inventing the Other Stuff. It gives people all the drawbacks of the re-arranging with none of the benefits of the Cool New Stuff, so it's not that surprising that they wind up belly-aching.

You said somewhere that you think it's better to 'get ready' for the change now, but...why? I don't see how it would be innately more difficult for people to adjust to the new layout once you've got the Cool New Stuff ready, and then they'd have the Cool New Stuff to make up for having to adjust to the new layout. Sure, it probably wouldn't be any _easier_ either, but that's not really a sufficient argument for doing it now. If you did it when the other changes are ready too, it'd probably make a lot more sense to people. If you've covered this somewhere, sorry, but if I haven't seen it, probably a lot of others haven't either =)

I agree with Adam Williamson and I think a lot of the heat this is generating comes from the fact that we don't know what is the "Cool New Stuff" that is being envisioned for the now free space.

I think most people can't really see improvements with this change and maybe it would open our minds a bit if we knew what sort of plans Mark/the Design Team have in store for us.

More than one person is missing the point here, I believe.

Ubuntu is free to use, distribute, and even more important in this case, free to modify. If you dislike the buttons on the left, just use the already mentioned gconf or extra PPA methods. That's it. Of course, you can like Ubuntu's/Canonical's decision on this issue, or you can dislike it; but noone is pointing a gun at your head. This is not how things are done in the free software world. They make a choice, and you can make the opposite choice in your own computer if you prefer.

Personally, I don't like Ubuntu One. And I am not blaming Ubuntu for including it in the default installation; I just uninstall it.

LOL, this shit storm is hilarious. I'm not going to waste my time with ubuntu anymore. It was a noob distro anyway.

On 18/03/10 17:36, bigbrovar wrote:
> Are you saying that those who think that the new design of windows
> button placement does not suit them, should take a walk and find
> another distro?

No. I'd rather they joined this thread and the ayatana list and
discussed options and ideas there. I wasn't saying "if you don't like
it, take a hike", I was acknowledging Pablo's point that ultimately
users *do* vote, by choosing products that work best for them.

> You might ask how can we know if users are happy with this design
> choice without first trying it and see from their feedbacks if it
> helped make their lives easier?

That's very hard to guage from the initial reaction. There have been a
lot of people who said, in effect, "EEEK CHANGE". There have been others
who said "I got used to it and haven't seen any major problems that I
was worried about, like accidentally closing apps". It would be useful
to get data. A mailing list or bug thread isn't data, though it's still
useful.

> True but you really don't want to perform such a test on an LTS which
> is the version of Ubuntu that is adopted by enterprise users. Even
> though I feel this change is a solution looking for a problem. Still I
> am not against giving it a try in one of the in between LTS releases
> and using the feedback generated as input on whether such a move would
> benefit the user or not.

The fact that this is an LTS cuts both ways. If I'm confident that
10.10, 11.04 and future releases will have the controls on the left, it
makes even more sense to do it now (because the LTS will then not look
dated compared to newer releases). As a precedent, we shipped Firefox
3.0*beta* for 8.04 LTS, which caused an uproar but was the right
decision given that 2.0 was nearing its end of life at the time.

>> Look, I understand this is risky. In my judgment, it's worth the risk.
>>
> Serious Mark you really think making this risky decisions for an LTS release is worth it? seriously?
>

Yes, very much.

> Consistency is the biggest problem of free desktop we always move the
> post to many times.

Much as it undermines my position, I have to agree.

Mark

I wish Linux proponents would decide whether you want people to switch to Linux from Windows or OS X, or not. I'm just trying Ubuntu again (Karmic) after last trying it (I think Dapper Drake was the last version I'd tried previously). It has improved tremendously since then but now I read this condescending attitude by the developer and I'm wondering what is is that makes Linux developers so arrogant at times. You guys all have Asperger's Syndrome or something? If I want to be treated badly by a company that thinks that I should have no say at all in their design decisions, I can just keep using a Mac (in case you are wondering, I am NOT a Mac fanboy — in fact I sincerely doubt I'll ever buy another, it has disappointed me in many ways).

Anyway, having used a Mac, I would say that it would not be a big upset to me if the buttons were on the left provided that the order emulated that which Mac users are accustomed. But it's troublesome to me that you want everyone that has learned how to get around in Windows, and/or on a Mac, to learn yet a third button pattern. This is not an insignificant thing - I, like many other computer users, have developed a "muscle memory". Maybe you don't experience this and don't understand it, but some of us don't cope with arbitrary design changes as well as others. If there were some valid reason for this — if it were necessary because of some new feature or something, or even because of some legal issue, then I could understand it, but no one is saying that.

So the way it comes across to me, and probably to many others who've noticed this change, is that you're doing it simply because you can, just to prove you wield some kind of power over others. It's like you're saying, "Look, Dad, I can force people all over the world to change the way they do things! I can make them unlearn YEARS of habit and use the computer the way *I* want them to use it!" Many of your users are telling you that this MATTERS to them, and your response is essentially "Let them eat cake!"

Sure, those who are knowledgeable enough can change the button order, but then you run into another issue, non-standard operation between machines. Let me give you an example. When I got my Mac Mini, I was coming from a Windows machine and wanted to use my Windows keyboard and have it operate as it always had, so I went out and got a third-party program (keyremap4mackbook) that let me switch keys to make them more Windows-like. I'm happy, and certainly not frustrated by the keyboard anymore at all (though I was very frustrated the first month, before I found that program). Trouble is, my son also has a Mac, and he does not remap his keys. So guess what happens when he tries to use mine? He gets really frustrated because he's used to a keyboard that operates the way Apple intended, which is non-standard from Windows.

Now you are going to have users that are used to the Mac OS X, and to Windows, that will change the button order first thing. Then you will have other users that either don't have the "muscle memory" issue, or are too uninformed to switch the button order. So what happens when a Linux admin who is used to the new order has t...

@Fox

I agree entirely. If Ubuntu fails, this is why. Look no further. Look at how many people hate this, and yet we have the developers saying that the majority opinion of the people that use the thing daily is stupid and that the non-standard behavior won't change.

It's not a meritocracy when bad things float to the top and you have a small self-interest enforcing the bad ideas over the opinions of the masses. This is exactly the kind of behavior that makes people want to get up and leave Microsoft or Apple to begin with.

Ever since Canonical went and bought Mac Asay, it's been "to hell with free software" and trying to mindlessly mimic the Mac. :P

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:

> No. This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome. But
> we are not voting on design decisions.

Mark,

I completely understand and agree with your position -- you are the benevolent dictator for life, and Ubuntu is not a democracy.

HOWEVER, I also understand and agree with most of the critics who say that this particular change in the user interface is bad.

People gave different reasons for why the change is bad. I'll give you another reason: touchscreens.

In the next couple of years we're going to see more and more touchscreen devices. As you may know, our fingers are not as precise as mouse pointers. If you put the close/minimize/maximize buttons on the left side, people *will* click on these buttons accidently, when they try to open the Applications menu. And that mistake, repeated over and over, will be infuriating.

If you agree that we are going to see more and more touchscreen devices, I hope you'll also agree that the close/minimize/maximize buttons should stay out of the way.

You don't have to listen to our opinions, but please consider what is best for the project in terms of usability.

Hi Mark , let me make a little contribution a this controversy , a o.s. , this one o anyone should be easy to use to the novice , they should do it so that it turns out to be as easy as possible to which are not geeks , the geek o experienced linux user can tune the desk by himself , but a novice what come from winxx it can turn out to be afraid in the first moment and to retire before beginning for things tam simple as the position of the buttons, it is me who believes , allow me to suggest humbly a idea and this is an option would be nice , at the first login after install with a dialog box that shows if the buttons of a side are wished or of other and that he is this user who decides as he has left more comfortable .
a cordial greeting Mark . :-)

Still no comments from the design team at all? Compiz, Firefox,, gnome-appearance, gnome-shell, etc that will need to be remodelled?

What about the users who don't like the buttons on the left and swap it to the right - will they therefore forgo the pleasures of Cool New Stuff when 10.10 comes out? Will doing so break themes? Worse still, will everything be patched to have close-on-left and therefore look stupid when users change to buttons-on-right?

What about Kubuntu and the other distros which don't appear to have picked up this change?

What about a simple method of feedback to guage how many users oppose this?

All questions asked over and over again in this thread, met with total and utter silence.

@Mark

Mr.Shuttleworth, you clearly are a more successful person than I am, and I respect your opinions to a certain degree.
I only want this change to be reverted since I work with regular end-users without computer knowledge and I am sure they will react to this change in a negative way.
You seem to be either stubborn or very confident. I won't discuss this change further since, after all, it doesn't affect ME personally. I can change it, most of the persons posting here can, if they like it or not.. Just think of those who got Ubuntu installed by a friend or relative, the type of people vulnerable to phising scams and spyware infections. They need to be babysitted, to put it bluntly.

Your adamant replies suggest me you do have something interesting in your mind, and I am certainly not the only one wanting to know what it is. You also imply you thought of the negative consequences, so you clearly thought of the non-tech users (which are after all, the largest numbers to handle).
From my humble position I suggest a little insight on the things to come. Play your cards right and you might turn hatred into hype.

Being an Ubuntu user, I am naturally inclined to see my distro of choice success. It's the same reason we want our team to win.

Adam Williamson wrote:
> You've said a couple of times that the idea is to free up the right hand corner
> for Other Stuff You Will Put There Later, which is a valid idea. What I don't get,
> though, is why you think it makes sense to do the freeing-up before you've got
> around to inventing the Other Stuff. It gives people all the drawbacks of the
> re-arranging with none of the benefits of the Cool New Stuff, so it's not that
> surprising that they wind up belly-aching.

That's a very good point.

If there are any reasons for the change, this should be tested separately -- like Gnome Shell, which I love.

The worst thing to do, in my opinion, is to do a disrupting change in a LTS.

Scaine:

The problem here is that people are talking past each other. What's primarily missing is a definition and explanation of the data and data collection methodology that Shuttleworth and the rest of the design team are interested in seeing collected and will respect as being good enough to form the basis of addressing design deficiencies. Without the precise details of what the form of the data is that the design team is interested in reviewing, the external group of people who are interested in seeing this reverted are casting about making a best effort to provide the input they feel qualifies as "data."

So far Shuttleworth has disregarded everything people have pointed to as not meeting his definition of "data." This can go on forever, further causing frustration and leading people to assume others in the conversation are acting in bad faith, until Shuttleworth puts his neck out and makes an emphatic statement as to what actually constitutes data. The ball is in Shuttleworth's court. If he wants to play ball with the community over the design process...he'll define what the community needs to do to impact it. If he doesn't want to play ball...he should just leave it at "trust me" and not talk about wanting "data" and getting everyone's hopes up. The more good faith effort people put into trying to convince him otherwise and being rebuffed as inadequate, the more emotional its going to get.

The problem is... the design team hasn't set forth a workable process by which deficiencies in their decision-making can be addressed by externals. If Shuttleworth is sincere about desiring data that will influence decision-making, then he needs to communicate what that means to the layuser sitting outside the design team and who is sincerely endeavoring to provide the necessary feedback to impact design decisions. Not just this one decision...but a standing process that applies to quantifiable deficiencies in all the closed door design decisions.

It also doesn't help that Shuttleworth and the design team are keeping future plans for the titlebar so private instead of sharing mock-ups as to what the open space on the right of the title could actually be used for in 10.10 and beyond. Withholding that sort of information makes it harder for others to correctly contextualize the short-term pain for long-term gain of this change.

> gnome-shell, Compiz, Firefox,, gnome-appearance, etc that will need to be remodelled?

To add to the list , "webpages" .[chat tabs, mail tabs , info bars , in-page popups, modal popups ] All the major sites have close buttons for these on the top right. [I'm not even sure if there is a site which places the "close" in a different location ]

When we are trying to blur the the distinction between desktop and the web, moving the close button to the left further widens the gap. User will now have to get used to two different positions for the same action.
Even if we fix all the apps within Ubuntu , not sure if we can convince the rest of the world to switch too. ;-)

IMO , if the "new exciting" stuff needs the space in the right, Ivanka's suggestion of "max and min on the left and close on the right." seems more reasonable.

http://blog.internetnews.com/apatrizio/do-not-want-dog.jpg

I've read through most of the comments and justification but I still think this change is MAJOR FAIL. Please revert.
I've been working very, very hard to fix Bug #1 and this sort of change is probably the most destructive thing you could possibly have done. Nobody I've spoken to likes this change, no matter how you may justify it. You may as well have changed the default keyboard layout to dvorak!