Some honest questions without any hidden agenda.......
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Sep 08, 2010 9:13 PM EDT |
I read the article reasonably carefully and two pieces of text stand out to me and I now quote them: One misconception about desktop effects is that they are solely used to increase aesthetic appeal and add no practical functionality. The reality, however, is that many desktop effects provide accessibility features and productivity enhancements, but having an awesome-looking desktop certainly doesn’t hurt. And further down the page: KDE desktop effects add eye candy and functionality to your desktop experience. My concern is that these blunt statements are just made by the various writers without substantiation ~ you are expected to accept them without testing. I cannot. For instance, how exactly, do wiggling window edges help me when I am editing an image ? Is there any place where they are essential, or snowflakes in the background for that matter ? Why does a spinning cube or whatever make access to my desktops so much better, when all I need to do is create those multiple desktops and switch from one to the other by using the menu panel ? Any Linux distribution or WM/DE is capable of that little trick. Transparency of folders or fade in and out.....okay, fine, but does it HELP me do work and how ? I can't see it and I am not trying to be a "stick in the mud"......I'd seriously like the answers. Tiling is another one. If you like that sort of display on a very, very big monitor, I can see how it might be the "answer to a maiden's prayer" but on my laptop screen, that sort of thing just doesn't work rather well as far as I am concerned. So, okay, I accept the writer is enthusiastic and enjoying the experiences of KDE4. No problems, but I want some explanation as to why and how these special effects actually do improve my principle tasks of word processing, database entry, browsing, emails, accounts entry, mapping and image manipulations. So far their only appeal to me is that they are certainly spectacular, pretty.......and as far as I know: CPU intensive. But adding to my productivity and functionality ? How ???? |
| mortenalver Sep 09, 2010 2:06 AM EDT |
I can't think of many desktop effects that help with functionality, but I like the way the task switcher shows you the actual contents of the windows you can switch to, in realtime (like it does in Ubuntu 10.4 with standard effects). That can help choose between several terminal windows or other things you might have several of. |
| jacog Sep 09, 2010 4:34 AM EDT |
Most eye candy is just that, eye candy. But some of it is useful. -I find it very convenient to just zip my mouse to the corner to reveal all open windows. It may seem like more work than clicking on the task bar, but for some users the reality is different. If you take Fitts's law into account, the screen corner is an infinitely large target. You can hit it without any thought. Then you are presented with all the open windows, again fairly large target areas. -Screen magnifiers are not new, but these days I can hold down a modifier and zoom in on anything, to any degree by just rolling my rat wheel. It's handy for web design, for example. -Previews on task bar have been mentioned. Don't use those myself, but I can see benefit to it for some. -For people who like taking their netbooks/laptops outdoors for astronomy outings it's also handy to be able to switch the desktop to a dark/inverted colour scheme with a keypress. And Ridcully, my answer is simple - these things are not meant to improve your word processing, database entry, browsing etc... that's what your word processor, DBMS and browser is for. These visual effects are part of the window manager and therefore are for managing windows. And tiling is awesome for having a bunch of consoles open or for running GIMP in its current multi-window mode. :P Thing that does not make sense: THE DESKTOP Some people just want their UI to be pretty. For that, desktop effects make more sense to me than desktop wallpaper and desktop widgets. In fact ANYTHING on the desktop. Why would I want icons on the desktop if I can have a quicklauncher in my panel? Why should I need to access devices from the desktop if there's a fargin panel widget for that? Why do I want a picture album of my cats on there if it's always obscured by open applications? (If you want other people to see it, put it in your screensaver for when you go to lunch) Why have a desktop clock- there's one on the panel. Why would I need the weather, cpu usage etc on the desktop if I can have a nice concise view on the panel that I can just click to expand? Before you yell about how busy my panel must be. It's a lot less busy than my desktop that I never see would be if all of that nonsense was on there. If I plug in a device, for example, I don't need to go hunt for the icon on my busy desktop. Losing the desktop is an awesome and liberating thing. Shoo shoo, away with you, foul thing from 1975! |
| Ridcully Sep 09, 2010 5:50 AM EDT |
Okay jacog (and please get this immediately, I am NOT out to disparage your choices, they are yours and yours alone and you are fully entitled to them !! And I will be the first in line to challenge anyone who says you are not entitled to have them.......and I mean that most sincerely !!!!!!!) Your summation is, and I quote: These visual effects are part of the window manager and therefore are for managing windows. Ummm, okay and I sense your deep enthusiasm and accept it fully for what it is......BUT, what if I want a reasonably simple environment......I just want a simple desktop with the ability to put icons on it, put files on it if I need to, know that what I have one day is precisely the same as the next without having to set a number of variables, what if I am like (and this is my supposition and may be wrong) the majority of simple users who want only a very few applications or windows running at a time; suppose I only want to work with a single Gimp or Photoshop item at a time.....suppose instead of your glorious vision, I only want to use a very simple desktop.........and it is at this point that I begin to wonder if that is what the majority of users want, and of course I really don't know that but I sure would LIKE to know......then, my question comes back to the obvious: what good is all this to me ? How does it help a person with simple desktop requirements to improve their productivity and functionality ? And again I stress Jacog, this is NOT a put-down. You apparently enjoy the complexities of KDE4, just as one of my friends has just said to me, and I quote his words precisely which are applied to the 3D effects in LM: Sure they do nothing useful absolutely nothing! but I LIKE THEM THEREFORE THEY STAY!!! It seems as if the best way out of the impasse if one wants to use KDE4 and get a simple desktop, is to learn how to turn EVERY desktop effect off and run in folder view. But even then, the software is slower than it should be as has been found by a recent reviewer and this is due to some large chunks of software that KDE4 requires to be run in the background.......sigh........deeper sigh......... However, thankyou for your input.......And it certainly gives some food for thought......Anyone else ? |
| jacog Sep 09, 2010 6:46 AM EDT |
"I sense your deep enthusiasm" This is a bit off the mark. I just offered arguments that might help you understand that while you may not see value in some things, others might. "You apparently enjoy the complexities of KDE4" Again, way off the mark. I don't run KDE4... I run a nameless hack-job of bits and pieces that I plonked together into a custom x startup script. I do however feel that one must never just dismiss something outright. You condemn the desktop effects as a whole without trying to see that some of it might be useful/valuable to some people. And if people want it just for aesthetic value, then there is still value in that. When you buy a car, it's nice to be able to choose the upholstery, paint colour and type of rims. Which leads me to "BUT, what if I want a reasonably simple environment". A simple answer - Then you run a simple desktop environment. There are many choices available to you as a user, not just Gnome/KDE. You are right though. Users more than likely do just want simple. And big features they don't use should not be taking up system resources. This is likely why Google was so successful as a search engine. The competition were all trying to be "web portals", when users just needed a search engine. |
| gus3 Sep 09, 2010 10:56 AM EDT |
Does Fitts' Law apply to keyboard shortcuts? There's only one WM menu I can't pull up without mouse action, and I'm about to see if I can change that. |
| jacog Sep 09, 2010 11:03 AM EDT |
Keyboard always wins. Can't deny that. :) |
| gus3 Sep 09, 2010 11:39 AM EDT |
There we go, Ctrl-Alt-Space for the window list. Alt-Tab is usually enough for window navigation, but one more nicety isn't going to hurt. I like my Sawfish. |
| JaseP Sep 09, 2010 4:46 PM EDT |
Aesthetics equating to productivity?!?! I suppose it all comes down to how you use the eye candy... Me... * Transparency/translucency = being able to see to a window underneath, for instance If I am following some install procedure posted on a website... & also having an onscreen keyboard (HTPCs and tablets) * spinning desktops = being able to visually know what workspace I am on * Pop-up OpenGL/compositing launcher (Cairo-dock) = free up screen real estate for open apps and easily launch the ones that I need most often * Preview widget = being able to switch to the correct open window, even across desktops * 3D cube = find that one open app you know you left under something else while you rotate the cube around * Launch/close/Min/Max effects = visually confirm if you are closing someing or just minimizing it, etc. * Wobbly windows = OK, you got me there. So, I actually DO use the eye candy for useful purposes. I, for one, would never say that eye candy has no useful purpose. If you just have it installed so it looks nice,... that does not equal productivity. But, maybe it will keep you working on something you are growing a little to bored about. THAT could increase productivity too, I suppose. |
| azerthoth Sep 09, 2010 5:34 PM EDT |
Should relabel the thread Ridcully, if you go after honest answers to 'honest questions' then there indeed does seem to have been an agenda. (Dont ask questions you wont like the answers to). |
| Ridcully Sep 09, 2010 5:40 PM EDT |
Thanks Jacog........when I wrote the response to your first post, I now confess I deliberately erred on the side of "enthusiasm" in order to make sure no offence was given. And despite what you said, I tried especially hard in the original posting to not condemn KDE4 or give that impression ~ I certainly did not condemn the special effects; I simply asked for justification in how they can be applied in everyday use and how they help productivity. Like I said in the heading, absolutely no hidden agenda. You'd be amazed (or perhaps not ?) how easy it is for a misplaced word to create angst in these discussions. Anyway, it seems as if we both land on the same target and I fully agree with your statement: "Users more than likely do just want simple. And big features they don't use should not be taking up system resources." And yes, I am exploring those simple options, Xfce, LXDE, Trinity KDE3.5, etc. etc. Even KDE4 with everything off.....but that is an option that goes way, way last and will be used only in sheer desperation. (No offence meant JaseP, and I hope none taken.) I read your list with interest JaseP, but so far the only one that is of any use to me is the spinning desktop but in practice it equates precisely with multiple desktops in KDE3.5 and other DE's, so it's immediately discarded. However, and again, this equates perfectly with how an individual user prefers to interact with their own desktop:- You like the eye candy for your desktop, I run like blazes to get away from it.........and personal choice is always the great gift from FOSS and is one of the main characteristics that separates us from the world of proprietary software. Thankfully. |
| Ridcully Sep 09, 2010 9:37 PM EDT |
For Azerthoth..........I am not sorry to say that in this case you are absolutely dead wrong. I have never hidden the fact that I don't especially like KDE4, but if I said I wanted honest answers and there was no hidden agenda, then that is precisely what I meant !! Nothing else !! And I do very much resent what I see personally as your rather mischievous attempt to put a slur on what was for me a very satisfying and productive debate with rather good responses. It is precisely because I personally cannot see the point of much of the special effects of KDE4 that I asked the question and got answers that I am sure were equally as honest and sincere as my question. The net result is that some people find special effects useless in productivity but like them anyway, others find them just useless, and still others actively use them. Both Jacog and JaseP provided very good concepts and ideas and I appreciated them very much indeed. Whether or not I personally liked the answers is irrelevant; the point was that I asked the question quite seriously and sincerely and I got serious and sincere answers. My response immediately above to Jacog also makes this point and contradicts your statement as well. One item that is worth exploring out of this debate has been made by me and supported very nicely by Jacog: just how many users actually bother with these effects in their normal daily work on the desktop ? It remains something to ponder on. |
| hkwint Sep 10, 2010 8:04 PM EDT |
Ridcully: Sad you didn't understand anything of what jacog just told you. He was basically saying "Why would I need plasmoids (KDE4-widgets) if everything is at my panel?" Plasmoids, as you might know, are about the biggest advertizements for KDE4. So basically, jacog was claiming he saw no need for KDE4. And then you conclude he 'liked it', how far off... Anyway, about the mentioned effects: I think those effects are especially useful if you're new to "current desktop environments". Those are for "approachability", not "productivity". However, if something is not "approachable", you may loose hours to find out how something works. I almost never minimize a window, but if I accidentally do so, it's just 'lost'. If you never minimize anything, you might wonder where it went (given I don't have a "start-bar" like in MS Windows / Gnome / KDE ), for such occasions. Then, there's "virtual desktops" for those who're not used to virtual desktops. On my display, there's no tiny picture of all the virtual desktops at all, so they're not visible, unless you switch to another one. But, 'backgrounding' some applications and "foregrounding" some others, might lead to the same result as switching to another desktop. You cannot know if you don't see the several different virtual desktops at the same time. So, without any 'graphic' representation, it would be hard to explain the concept of virtual desktops to somebody. However, if they look at the cube, they'd understand within one tenth of a second what's happening, and how you can switch. That leads us to the difference between 'usability' and 'approachability'. These are often confused. 'usability' relates to productivity. "If I know how it works, and if I know the shortcut-keys, how productive am I?" 'approachability' relates to productivity of first-time users. "If I never used this software, how much time does it take to learn it and get something done?". Desktop Effects, in my opinion, are for approachability. They are there to increase productivity of first-time users. However, those who use the software daily and know the concepts, and what's happening: Those people don't need approachability-aids. And since lots of approachability-aids (like tooltips etc.) can be distraction, once you're no new user anymore, you're probably more productive without them. |
| azerthoth Sep 11, 2010 3:43 AM EDT |
@ Ridcully, Nice, but since you (and you alone) knew that you were going to jump up and down on any answers contrary to your world view, you laid a brick under a hat to see who you could get to stub their toe, with intent. And as hans points out, your still not listening to the answers either, just grousing. As you yourself pointed out, you have deemed them being devoid of value. You have through the thread stood fast by that. So I can only conclude that since you refuse to change your mind that the question, politely phrased as it may have been, was designed wholly as flame bait. Have a nice day :) |
| caitlyn Sep 11, 2010 12:29 PM EDT |
@az: You just described why I didn't respond. :) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!