Unity

Bug #668415
Comment #52

Comment 52 for bug 668415

Revision history for this message

Nathanael Schilling (nathanaelschilling) wrote on 2011-04-15:

#52

"A willingness to limit the set of supported options is a large part of
the quality of the out-of-box desktop experience." -Mark Shuttleworth, quoted from above.

I am sorry, but I beg to differ.
A willingness to limit the set of supported options is why I switched from KDE to Gnome a year ago, as KDE Plasma removed configurability from it's wallpaper plugin that earlier allowed me to use multiple compiz wallpapers together with KDE, and removing this configurability made the UI lose it's appeal over gnome that it had earlier.

I am actually a little worried that the current design mentality for ubuntu seems to be "give the user one interface and don't let them change it as not to be confused". I can live with the fact that an additional plugin needs to be installed to configure unity, but any ui designer knows that configurability options can be grouped into various "levels of complexity", as not to bewilder the end user. As Mark brings it up, so will I... the old Gnome panel is a great example of how something is easy to use, configurable and is highly complex and customisable... I know of many non-linux-experts who have no problem using the gnome panel, and who, in fact, have no problem with the fact that it may not be "consistent" if one does strange things to it. As for the "consistency" argument, most linux users will agree that the diversity of linux allows each person to personalise their desktop, and this general lack of the potential for personalisation in unity may well create a lack of diversity and creativity that was present earlier. Many a windows-user places their panel on a different part of the screen simply to be different from the rest. I would go so far as to say that a lack of personalisation makes the desktop boring, not easier to use.

The "go write a patch yourself" view expressed above is somewhat sensible if it were to get included in the trunk or in some repo, but as a programmer myself I know that it is not too difficult to code in more configuration options, so I doubt that lack of resources is too much of a problem, considering the "100 papercuts" initiative, and this, I would say, may qualify for something like this.

Lastly, I would like to ask those who design unity to consider adding more configuration options, as the adoption of ubuntu of those who know computers well, and would therefore be willing to configure unity more, is crucial for the more widespread adoption of ubuntu as those are the people who install ubuntu on their friends' computers. Thinking back to KDE 4, I see that history does seem to repeat itself - KDE 4.0 had barely any configuration options in the panel, whilst the current KDE has many... probably as a result to user feedback.

"A willingness to limit the set of supported options is a large part of
the quality of the out-of-box desktop experience." -Mark Shuttleworth, quoted from above.

I am actually a little worried that the current design mentality for ubuntu seems to be "give the user one interface and don't let them change it as not to be confused". I can live with the fact that an additional plugin needs to be installed to configure unity, but any ui designer knows that configurability options can be grouped into various "levels of complexity", as not to bewilder the end user. As Mark brings it up, so will I... the old Gnome panel is a great example of how something is easy to use, configurable and is highly complex and customisable... I know of many non-linux-experts who have no problem using the gnome panel, and who, in fact, have no problem with the fact that it may not be "consistent" if one does strange things to it. As for the "consistency" argument, most linux users will agree that the diversity of linux allows each person to personalise their desktop,  and this general lack of the potential for personalisation in unity may well create a lack of diversity and creativity that was present earlier. Many a windows-user places their panel on a different part of the screen simply to be different from the rest. I would go so far as to say that a lack of personalisation makes the desktop boring, not easier to use.

Lastly, I would like to ask those who design unity to consider adding more configuration options, as the adoption of ubuntu of those who know computers well, and would therefore be willing to configure unity more, is crucial for the more widespread adoption of ubuntu as those are the people who install ubuntu on their friends' computers. Thinking back to KDE 4, I see that history does seem to repeat itself - KDE 4.0 had barely any configuration options  in the panel, whilst the current KDE has many... probably as a result to user feedback.