GNOME/GTK+ criticism thread.
Which person thought that this was a good idea? Now you have to spend more time moving the mouse cursor to get back. Unless you're one of the 3 people who use GNOME software with touch-screens.
>>46782346
The UI for Boxes is about as retarded.
When it's first opened, there's text in the middle saying that no boxes have been found, and the user should create one by pressing the button on the top left. Why the hell is this text itself not accompanied by a button (or a link) instead of giving directions? It's as if someone at least partially realized there's a problem but couldn't quite figure out how to fix it.
Pressing the "New" button in the top left corner of the title bar then turns the window into a wizard-ish dialog. "New" becomes "Cancel" and the "close window" button in the top right corner of the bar is replaced by "Back" and "Continue". So you have to drag the mouse all the way to the other end.
The left side of the window displays the steps involved in the Box creation process, but not even the next and previous steps can be used like links. The "Back" button can't be used to exit the process, so it's back to the top left corner all the way across the screen if you need to do that.
Also, by converting the window into a wizard like this, the user is blocked from the list of boxes while the wizard is in progress.
tl;dr even web and phone apps don't assume (and display) this level of mental retardation
>>46782346
Use a tiling window manager like any productive person would.
>>46783506
This has nothing to do with tiling window managers. Do you even know what tiling window managers are? Because if you did, you wouldn't be making such inane comments.
This is just the new retarded, probably standard way of displaying sub menu items in GTK+ software.
Submit a bug report.
>>46783984
It's not a bug, it's literally a feature.
>>46782346
KDE/Qt is a thing op
something something thumbnails
>Submit a bug report.
And enjoy your problems being brushed aside in the name of their oh-so-clever-and-modern design rules?
>>46785020
No, it's quite literally a bug.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=741155
>>46782346
What the fuck is that. I run GNOME and I've never seen any menu work that way.
>>46782346
what happened to file edit view help etc.
>>46789405
It's a gedit bug that's existed for far too long
>>46789405
New fancy menu, added in gnome 3.12 or 3.14.
>>46789444
I don't use gedit usually, I'm also using numix-dark and my menus look fine.
>>46789528
what icon set is that?
>>46789552
numix as well. can get it all off apt without any hassle.
>>46789562
thanks
i can see what they were trying to do (make nested menus easier to navigate)
they just failed in their execution and made them worse
that's gnome for you i guess
i don't really mind the tab switching thing, and i like the fact that the menu doesn't need to have the cursor over it to remain open. i think that's what they were going for
however, they fucked up bigtime. why doesn't the new menu appear at the same vertical position as the mouse? that's ridiculous
i think that this could also make scanning large menus more difficult in complex applications, so if you do have complex nested menus, you haven't really made them easier to navigate at all, in fact you've made them magnitudes harder
and yet, if you ask a gnome designer, they'll say 'we've improved the UI\UX'. but that's not what they've done. they've made arbitrary decisions, they haven't actually put any thought into UX, they haven't considered or (god forbid) tested how users will be interacting with these menus and whether they can actually use these menus
all they've done is try to make the UI LOOK simpler, whilst actually making it more complex to use
i think that's a good description of the whole of gnome, actually.
Users:
>This is fucking stupid. I don't like this at all.
Gnome dev:
>Yes you do. Thread closed.
>>46789594
someone on bugzilla posted this mockup, which is actually a very good solution to this problem - easier to navigate than a nested menu with a horizontal component, prettier and more compact. is this what they were supposed to be going for?
>>46789619
this is how the menus in Gnome Shell have always looked like
Cancer DE.
Give KDE a chance.
>>46782346
Well, there's your problem, OP. If you see a button like this, uninstall the fucking program.
>>46790455
What web browser do you use?
>>46790689
Conkeror.
I can dig it. You lot are just jealous of my screen recorder.
>>46790455
all the sausage button does is turn a horizontal menu into a vertical dropdown, thus saving a bunch of screen space that would have otherwise been wasted
>>46783486
they're trying real hard to make something better than they already had
problem being that gnome 2 was pretty much fucking perfect and now they're just going backwards
>>46790827
Vertical dropdowns and horizontal menus are not equivalent. With the horizontal ones you can go directly to a "category" (e.g. File) and then just move your mouse downward once to select a menu entry. With a vertical sausage menu, you first have to click the button, and then move your mouse to the category before you can even begin to navigate to the actual menu entries.
It might work for touch screens, but definitely not for normal computers.
Then you have the problem where developers suddenly start raving on about convergence and you get shit like >>46782346 or pic related.
>>46789528
The version is the issue. Which GTK and Gedit version is that?
>>46789688
They didn't expand submenus like that.
I hate the new gedit, even had leafpad as an replacement for a while, but I don't really like that one either. Then I remembered there was Mate, they forked gkt2 gedit and called it Pluma. I'm totally happy with that one.
>>46790849
I disagree. Once I got used to it and fiddled a little around with the shell (turned effects off and such) it had become kind of hard to go back. That said, I really like the shell, not the UI design of their other software.
>>46789594
this is gnome since forever, muh UX retarded changes until a year later when they get tired of being called dumbfucks
>>46790455
This.
>GTK/Gnome is kill
Since this is a Gnome thread, how do people work with file manager limitations? I completely switched to Nemo atm, but it's still not 100% how I'd like it. Thumbnail size compared to folder size is all kinds of fucked up, shouldn't they all scale in size accordingly?
I wish there were more and diverse extensions, pretty much all of them deal with the top bar or desktop in some way, nothing for file managers.
>>46792216
What's good about it? Isn't Pluma development really slow compared to Gedit?
I haven't felt the need to use anything else so far, but then again I only use it to edit dot/config files.
>>46782346
It's slow!
>>46794221
Do Nemo or Nautilus remember the views separately for each directory? That's one feature I'm missing in Thunar.
It's not a big issue, so I'm still happy with Thunar as far as GTK+ file managers go.
>>46794676
>remember the views separately for each directory
I don't think so, I'm currently dual booting on Windows to play some gaymes but I remember it also being one of the things that I missed.
Honestly, the file manager makes the whole system, you need to be able to browse and view files efficiently otherwise what's the point. Only KDE so far has understood that. I feel like I'm constantly fighting against Gnome.
>>46794740
>I don't think so
Strange, I remember reading several years ago that all the major file managers had agreed on a format for .directory files, and Dolphin supports a ViewMode value (which I suppose is what does the thing you are talking about).
>>46794221
I don't really care for updates to Gedit/Pluma, I just can't stand the new UI and I used to love gedit. I just want a simple, pretty text editor with syntax highlighting for config files and notes to myself. Pluma and nano fullfill that need. Obviously I don't use it for serious development either, but that not what gedit's for.
>>46792099
He might be using Ubuntu, which still uses gedit 3.10
I miss the days of KDE 2 and 3 when it was the defacto desktop. It worked well and we didn't have a gazillion desktop environments dividing developers efforts. They could all focus on KDE and things just worked. Then they had to go Vista on us with KDE4 and everything was ruined.
>>46797180
You're still stuck in 2004-era desktops. That thing looks ugly nowadays, KDE is now more mature and refined. Take your nostalgia goggles off.
>>46797224
>That thing looks ugly nowadays
Things don't magically start looking ugly because some retard in a polo shirt demands it. KDE 3 looks fine.
>>46797500
It has not become ugly, but it looks dated.
>>46797180
Plasma's great though.
And I don't really see how Plasma is responsible for the shitload of desktop environment we currently have.
XFCE and GNOME existed long before KDE4.
And yeah, For a while KDE was the de facto standard DE, but what made it lose its first place was more Ubuntu's popularity inflating Gnome's popularity.
Then Unity and Gnome 3 happened and it started a forking frenzy within the Gnome community, which is the reason we currently have so many DEs.
If anything, Qt's awesomeness, in large part propelled bye KDE's efforts[1], is the main reason behind the LXDE/RazorQt merger.
[1] roughly 50% of commits in Qt come from KDE people. http://pusling.com/blog/?p=362
