OnlyOneGnomePanel

Revision 13 as of 2006-06-11 12:55:58

Clear message

Summary

I think that Ubuntu should have a only one gnome panel (bottom) like a new Suse 10.1

Default Suse 10.1 has the only one gnome panel with a menu "Applications" "Places" "System". Similar to a KDE and Windows.

It's important for a new users which like a similarity to a good known Windows and for businessmen who decide is linux good for his company or not (because it hav'nt a standard look and is different from good known Windows). Advanced user can easy switch on his favourite two panels (it takes 2 seconds). New user (a previous Windows user) CAN'T HIDE a top panel, because he is a beginner and don't know how (and he is confused in a strange looking system). When the default instalation has only one (bottom) Gnome panel ALL users (advanced and beginner) can have they favorite environment (advanced user switch on top panel in 2 seconds). Don't worry dear advanced users, this idea don't destroy your favourite two panels (with a hundred plugins). It's take care of new people (a previous Windows users).

Screenshoots (Suse 10.1 desktop): http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=637&slide=27

If you want, you can change the long names of menus "Applications" "Places" "System" to shorter "Applications" "Actions" (like older Gnome) and display only the time without the date to save the space on bottom panel (but it's not necessary because people buy new monitors with higher resolutions, in future 16:9)

In a Linux world we have a two popular graphics environment KDE and Gnome. If we want to have a one standard - the Gnome (the KDE and Xfce as additional environment) we must convince of Gnome a new users (a previous Windows users) who choose the KDE for a only one reason: a similarity to Windows. If the KDE will become a standard You don't get a new version of your favourite Gnome in 2009. You will have a real Only_One_KDE_Panel instead of my the Only_One_Gnome_Panel (where you can switch on two panels).

Discussion

PiotrUsewicz: "I think that Ubuntu team should reconsider having two panels (top and bottom). While bottom panel is OK, the top one just seems a bit too much. The most annoying thing is that you can't simply move your mouse to the top right corner to close the applications, as there is no close button. What is more, this is not OS X where you can close a window using keyboard. Ubuntu Desktop should be redesigned to gain more working space and improve general system usability. Remember that vertical space of screen is smaller, much smaller than horizontal one, especially on 16:9 screens"

Warbo: "I disagree with this idea. Firstly, the panel is a useful area for applets, such as battery and network monitors, and also I strongly believe that the Deskbar applet should be included by default. This would require a lot of horizontal room (my deskbar almost fills my top panel between the menus and the notification area). Secondly, if any panel is to go, surely it would be the bottom one? By having the top panel in place users who do not know about alt-click for moving windows cannot "lose" the titlebars for their apps (Often the UI gets confused/lags and Metacity thinks I am dragging a window, resulting in an inaccessible titlebar). A consistent feeling is created due to top-right of a window being close for that window, and top-right of GNOME being close (logout) for GNOME. The top panel also does much more than the bottom panel, and it keeps the system consistent since the menus are split into three, which are labelled with text. This is more similar to a "File Edit View..." style menu, meaning it should be put it into the top left and open downwards to keep an ergonomic UI, rather than a single graphical button (it is not the "start" which differentiates the menu in Windows XP, it is the green backing), for which there is no precedent in Ubuntu, making the top left as good a choice as any anyway. The bottom panel can easily be done away with now through the use of Alt-Tab (Compiz or otherwise), placing Trash on the desktop and moving what is left to the top panel (although I think it should stay), but the same cannot be said of the top panel.

KDE's use of a single panel fails miserably when it is reduced to the default width of the GNOME panels, as applets and launchers become a confusing mess. Therefore the "screen area" idea cannot be fixed with a single panel, as the panel would have to be double-thick like Kicker to accomodate the required features, and launchers would become twice as big, making the increase in size mostly useless. However, the current underuse of the panel would make this noticably inefficient as the double-thickness would be seen as an unneccesary intrusion into the screen area, whilst the top panel is seen as essential due to it's default applets (with the inclusion of a deskbar similar in size to the window-switcher there is no wasted space). Besides, having 2 smaller panels makes the perception of bloat on the screen much less acute than a large, Kicker-style panel.

The panels offer a border for the screen, which I find subconciously comforting. The Amiga Workbench uses a "backdrop" option by default which removes all borders except for the main menu (which is, coincidently, at the top), but I always disable this in favour of turning the whole Workbench screen into an Intuition window (Intuition is similar to a window manager), complete with scroll bars, widgets in the corner, etc. as I find that definition of my useable area much more comforting, and I have been doing this for 14 years.

I think that making a default out of anything which detracts from general users' experience in exchange for pleasing Windows converts is unacceptable. Windows compatibility should only be offered optionally as a part of the installation procedure (such as "import Windows settings and bookmarks"). Ubuntu is not Windows. If the vast majority of Windows users prefer Microsoft Office to OpenOffice, Outlook to Thunderbird and IE to Firefox then I doubt destroying the panel system to make them feel at home is going to be noticable (until, of couse, they have used Ubuntu for a while and find it annoying). It is trivially easy to reconfigure the panels (dragging them is similar to Windows) so any Windows user could reconfigure it to work in the same way as windows if they wanted to. About business and recognition, I have never seen any non-Microsoft praise of a Windows user interface. However, there is widespread respect for Apple's MacOSX which this article fails to mention at all. Apple have paid vast sums of money to professional designers for their interface, and it is emulated by Windows users, KDE (Baghira has had so much work put into it that SOMEONE must care enough), GNOME and others. How is the Apple interface configured? There is a panel across the top, with menus in the top left, a deskbar-style search box, etc. Across the bottom is a launcher area, essentially another panel (this effect can be achieved in GNOME using GDesklets). I have raised many points here, but after seeing this Wiki page being referenced by many people I knew I had to act to prevent a user interface disaster for GNOME.

Wolki: I'll side with Warbo here. Having two panels brings many benefits.

  • The edges are the easiest (and thus fastest) place to reach with a mouse, followed by the sides. It thus seems to make sense having actions there that are as independent from the current state of the system as possible. Two panels gives us all four edges and the two lagest sides to put good things. (Piotr: I see the point about closing applications, but it it lagely dependent on the state of your windows - if the are not maximized or positioned very carefully, you can't close them that way anyway. Even more, this might lead to accidentally closing the wrong window if you habitualize it and the current window does not extend to the edge, but another window does. And if the cognitive overhead is already there, the time for pointing should not matter that much.)
  • There are a lot of things that are useful to have on panels, as they are not covered by windows and are thus always accessible. Using only one panel would mean that many useful functionalities would have to be removed or cannot be added (like the deskbar, which really should be on the default panel). Also, more and more things get notification applets (Power monitor, network stuff, applications...). While many people see this as not a good thing, preferring proper panel applets, the panel needs to leave enough space for this.
  • Some configurability for users is good. A lot of people love panel launchers, which admittedly has to do with the general uselesness of the application menu in Windows, but they are useful nonetheless. Users should have some space to add such things.
  • The window list rapidly drops in usefulness if you decrease its size. Especially as the standard RAM size grows and thte number of programs people use, there are going to be more windows open at the same time. Virtual Workspaces will help, but a large window list will still be of great help. Take a look at that Suse screenshot: the both greatly reduce the size of the window list and remove the workspace switcher (the last thing is a decision I can somehow understand, but I still think it's wrong). Managing windows on this is going to be as bad on this (or even worse than) on Windows.
  • What is our goal: Trying to make a desktop that's as much a cheaper drop-in replacement for other operating systems as possible, or trying to make a desktop that is so pleasurable, easy, and powerful to use that people will want to use it?
  • While the vertical screen space thing holds, I feel losing 24 pixel to something useful is a price we can afford to pay. Especially as applications that really need more space all have a full screen mode (and you can force fullscreen for pretty much all gnome applications using metacity or devilspie) and resolutions continue to grow.

["Darek27"]: Advanced user can easy switch on his favourite two panels (it takes 2 seconds). New user (a previous Windows user) CAN'T HIDE a top panel, because he is a beginner and don't know how (and he is confused in a strange looking system). When the default instalation has only one (bottom) Gnome panel ALL users (advanced and beginner) can have they favorite environment (advanced user switch on top panel in 2 seconds). Don't worry dear advanced users, this idea don't destroy your favourite two panels (with a hundred plugins). It's take care of new people (a previous Windows users).

  • Wolki: I have installed Ubuntu on several machines, most of these are used by new users, including a small computer pool. None of them had a problem with two panels, and one who didn't like them dragged the upper panel to the bottom and was perfectly happy with that; he found out how to do this himself (surprise: it works like it works in windows). OTOH, many of them commented about how clean and uncluttered it was. This is one of our strengths, as well as the nice functionality we have. Do new users not want to easily search for stuff, or have their favorite programs on the panel so they don't have to go to the menu each time? Lets use these strengths. There are no doubt a lot of things that can be made easier, but I fell the panel in its basic usage is none of them. ["scaine"] : Showing even a technical user the default gnome/ubuntu layout causes comparison to Macintosh (with theatrical spitting noises). I suspect that new, ex-windows users will want something more familiar. I suspect that new ex-mac users will want to lose the bottom panel. Can I suggest instead of making a decision on which bar (if any) to lose, that instead all items are simply not "locked" so that the user can make their own decision easily. It takes ages to unlock everything so that one or the other panels can be removed without losing functionality.

CategorySpec