The new settings manager complicates the usage of the settings dialogs. Instead of closing an window for a specific set of options and using the main window in the background to open the next option window, I now have to remember the "Overview" button to get back (which I can't nor can I "see" it in the far bottom left). This solution is worse than the old, because: - It's not fire and forget but needs more user intervention: If you normally open the overview dialog you know you want to use more than one option dialog. but while you use one, you now need to remember to go back to the overview dialog manually - instead of finishing the current task with "OK" or closing the window. - It's nonstandard: No other program I use does this. - You can't open 2 dialogs from the same main window. Opening from the main menu is much slower than just clicking 2 large buttons. Sidenote: Why no more buttons? It makes it harder to select fast. For me it looks like useless polishing :/ Please don't mail me directly but answer on the bugzilla. Thank you.
Well, you've picked an exceptionally poor time to bring this up; there will be no big changes to these components before 4.6. > - It's not fire and forget but needs more user intervention: If you normally > open the overview dialog you know you want to use more than one option dialog. > but while you use one, you now need to remember to go back to the overview > dialog manually - instead of finishing the current task with "OK" or closing > the window. Opening *any* dialog isn't fire and forget. You need to close it when you're done. You don't have to go back to the overview when you're finished; you can just close the entire box. > - It's nonstandard: No other program I use does this. Just because you don't use one, it doesn't mean nothing exists. See the MacOS X prefs dialog. And what's "standard" in the unix world anyway? > - You can't open 2 dialogs from the same main window. Opening from the main > menu is much slower than just clicking 2 large buttons. This IMHO is really your only valid criticism. I'd consider adding a right-click "open in new window" option, but that's it. > Sidenote: Why no more > buttons? It makes it harder to select fast. Uh, how? Icons/buttons -- both require only a single click. > For me it looks like useless polishing :/ You're certainly welcome to your opinion. Bottom line: You'll get used to it.
(In reply to comment #1) > Well, you've picked an exceptionally poor time to bring this up; there will be > no big changes to these components before 4.6. > > > - It's not fire and forget but needs more user intervention: If you normally > > open the overview dialog you know you want to use more than one option dialog. > > but while you use one, you now need to remember to go back to the overview > > dialog manually - instead of finishing the current task with "OK" or closing > > the window. > > Opening *any* dialog isn't fire and forget. You need to close it when you're > done. You don't have to go back to the overview when you're finished; you can > just close the entire box. It is - I can forget that I wanted to do something else after what I'm going to do now and concentrate entirely on the actual task. Also most option dialogs apply things instantly, so I can just close them any way I want if I changed what I wanted. I don't need to press a specific "Close" button to apply my changes explicitly. But I need to apply explicitly "Overview" instead of seeing the overview dialog after I closed the option dialog I used. With the new dialog I need to remember myself if I wanted to do something else or not if I'm done before I close the dialog, with the old dialog I would remember that I wanted to do something after I closed the specific option dialog and come back again to the overview dialog. What do you think needs more brainwork and is more distracting? The version where I need to remember myself or the version which remembers me? > > - It's nonstandard: No other program I use does this. > > Just because you don't use one, it doesn't mean nothing exists. See the MacOS > X prefs dialog. And what's "standard" in the unix world anyway? > Nothing is standard, you are right. But the problem is that the new dialog itself is not how xfce normally does things and it doesn't seem like an improvement which would be necessary to become a new "standard"/better way to do things for xfce. MacOS X isn't exactly a good example after they decided to throw away usability for some eyecandy. But I can only say what I read in blogs from its users, I don't use it myself. > > - You can't open 2 dialogs from the same main window. Opening from the main > > menu is much slower than just clicking 2 large buttons. > > This IMHO is really your only valid criticism. I'd consider adding a > right-click "open in new window" option, but that's it. Nah, that would be stupid. Nobody would use it and it would be more or less unused code which needs to be maintained. > > Sidenote: Why no more > > buttons? It makes it harder to select fast. > > Uh, how? Icons/buttons -- both require only a single click. You either have to select the small icon or the text. The whole box around it is a no click area. The old version allowed to click the whole box which made it easier/faster to open a dialog. > Bottom line: You'll get used to it. Doing the same things I could do before now with only more effort on my part? Hell no.
(In reply to comment #2) > It is - I can forget that I wanted to do something else after what I'm going to > do now and concentrate entirely on the actual task. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't see how this has anything to do with how the dialog works. If you want multiple dialogs open at the same time, either launch multiple instances of the settings manager and load them in-line, or run the exact dialog(s) that you want from the menu without going through the settings manager at all. > Also most option dialogs apply things instantly, so I can just close them any > way I want if I changed what I wanted. I don't need to press a specific "Close" > button to apply my changes explicitly. But I need to apply explicitly > "Overview" instead of seeing the overview dialog after I closed the option > dialog I used. Right. So? > With the new dialog I need to remember myself if I wanted to do something else > or not if I'm done before I close the dialog, with the old dialog I would > remember that I wanted to do something after I closed the specific option > dialog and come back again to the overview dialog. Well, after you forget a couple times, you'll learn. No big deal. This particular argument boils down to "it's different and I'm not used to it so change it back." Sorry, but no. > What do you think needs more brainwork and is more distracting? The version > where I need to remember myself or the version which remembers me? How often do you change things in the settings dialogs anyway, huh? This shouldn't be a regular occurrence. > Nothing is standard, you are right. But the problem is that the new dialog > itself is not how xfce normally does things We define how Xfce 'normally' does things. We're trying something new. You may not like it, or may not be used to it, but that doesn't make it bad or wrong. > and it doesn't seem like an improvement I disagree. > which would be necessary to become a new "standard"/better way to > do things for xfce. It's not about making anything "standard." It's just... how it is. Feel free to write your own settings manager or hack the sources of the current one to do what you want. Or you can even just remove the X-XfcePluggable line from the .desktop files for the settings dialogs you want always launched in new windows. > MacOS X isn't exactly a good example after they decided to throw away usability > for some eyecandy. But I can only say what I read in blogs from its users, I > don't use it myself. So basically you're saying "I've never used it but I'm going to repeat things others have spoken as if they're my opinion." Sorry dude, I use MacOS X on a daily basis, and I find it *very* usable. > > > - You can't open 2 dialogs from the same main window. Opening from the main > > > menu is much slower than just clicking 2 large buttons. > > > > This IMHO is really your only valid criticism. I'd consider adding a > > right-click "open in new window" option, but that's it. > > Nah, that would be stupid. Nobody would use it and it would be more or less > unused code which needs to be maintained. So you wouldn't use it? Ok then. > > > > Sidenote: Why no more > > > buttons? It makes it harder to select fast. > > > > Uh, how? Icons/buttons -- both require only a single click. > > You either have to select the small icon or the text. The whole box around it > is a no click area. The old version allowed to click the whole box which made > it easier/faster to open a dialog. Then I'd consider that a bug in the icon view, not a deficiency of the model. > > Bottom line: You'll get used to it. > > Doing the same things I could do before now with only more effort on my part? > > Hell no. Wow, you seem to be quite passionate about something as silly as a settings dialog, something that you probably interact with a lot immediately when setting up your desktop, and then perhaps touch once every few months afterwards. Chill, dude. Change is inevitable. It works for some people, and not for others. If you honestly can't deal with it, feel free to use some other piece of software.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Nothing is standard, you are right. But the problem is that the new dialog > > itself is not how xfce normally does things No other application has as much dialogs as the settings manager has. Given that, it makes sense to think twice about how you display these dialogs. The old settings manager just displayed them, the new one embedds them. We think the new way is neat because it avoids cluttering up your desktop with dialogs. So there's reasoning behind doing this. If you want stand-alone dialogs, use the menu. > > > > - You can't open 2 dialogs from the same main window. Opening from the main > > > > menu is much slower than just clicking 2 large buttons. > > > > > > This IMHO is really your only valid criticism. I'd consider adding a > > > right-click "open in new window" option, but that's it. > > > > Nah, that would be stupid. Nobody would use it and it would be more or less > > unused code which needs to be maintained. It's funny how you talk about everyone else without actually knowing what they would do. Is that supposed to make your arguments look stronger? Doesn't work for me, I'm sorry. > > You either have to select the small icon or the text. The whole box around it > > is a no click area. The old version allowed to click the whole box which made > > it easier/faster to open a dialog. > > Then I'd consider that a bug in the icon view, not a deficiency of the model. IMHO it's not a bug, it's just how the icon view works. Thunar behaves the same. This would be a separate bug anyway. Sorry, Martin, I couldn't agree more with Brian. We're not going to revert the settings manager GUI in 4.6. Maybe we'll change it in 4.8, but probably not back to the old behaviour. I actually find the new behaviour very convenient and you brought up no arguments to justify going back to the old way of doing it.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > It is - I can forget that I wanted to do something else after what I'm going to > > do now and concentrate entirely on the actual task. > > Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't see how this > has anything to do with how the dialog works. If you want multiple dialogs > open at the same time, either launch multiple instances of the settings manager > and load them in-line, or run the exact dialog(s) that you want from the menu > without going through the settings manager at all. Which would take more time and clicks. > > Also most option dialogs apply things instantly, so I can just close them any > > way I want if I changed what I wanted. I don't need to press a specific "Close" > > button to apply my changes explicitly. But I need to apply explicitly > > "Overview" instead of seeing the overview dialog after I closed the option > > dialog I used. > > Right. So? With the old way I came back to the main dialog either way. If I wanted to use only a single option dialog I would have opened it directly. > > With the new dialog I need to remember myself if I wanted to do something else > > or not if I'm done before I close the dialog, with the old dialog I would > > remember that I wanted to do something after I closed the specific option > > dialog and come back again to the overview dialog. > > Well, after you forget a couple times, you'll learn. No big deal. This > particular argument boils down to "it's different and I'm not used to it so > change it back." Sorry, but no. It's different and no improvement. Why should I learn something which doesn't make my work easier? > > What do you think needs more brainwork and is more distracting? The version > > where I need to remember myself or the version which remembers me? > > How often do you change things in the settings dialogs anyway, huh? This > shouldn't be a regular occurrence. Every day. duh. Must suck to be me. > > Nothing is standard, you are right. But the problem is that the new dialog > > itself is not how xfce normally does things > > We define how Xfce 'normally' does things. We're trying something new. You > may not like it, or may not be used to it, but that doesn't make it bad or > wrong. It's not bad because it's new. It's JUST bad. If it would be better than the old way I wouldn't request for a revert. > > which would be necessary to become a new "standard"/better way to > > do things for xfce. > > It's not about making anything "standard." It's just... how it is. Feel free > to write your own settings manager or hack the sources of the current one to do > what you want. Or you can even just remove the X-XfcePluggable line from the > .desktop files for the settings dialogs you want always launched in new > windows. Tell me again if every other part of xfce uses the same way of handling it's option menu :D So yes, it is nonstandard because all other parts of xfce don't behave that way. > > MacOS X isn't exactly a good example after they decided to throw away usability > > for some eyecandy. But I can only say what I read in blogs from its users, I > > don't use it myself. > > So basically you're saying "I've never used it but I'm going to repeat things > others have spoken as if they're my opinion." Sorry dude, I use MacOS X on a > daily basis, and I find it *very* usable. I think I know when a user talks rubbish and when not. If I would have thought that the opinions I read where bullshit I wouldn't have brought them up here. > Wow, you seem to be quite passionate about something as silly as a settings > dialog, something that you probably interact with a lot immediately when > setting up your desktop, and then perhaps touch once every few months > afterwards. Chill, dude. Change is inevitable. It works for some people, and > not for others. If you honestly can't deal with it, feel free to use some > other piece of software. I'm passionate because the new settings dialog shows for me a decline in quality of what the xfce desktop delivers. I couldn't care less if it is an improvement.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > > Also most option dialogs apply things instantly, so I can just close them any > > > way I want if I changed what I wanted. I don't need to press a specific "Close" > > > button to apply my changes explicitly. But I need to apply explicitly > > > "Overview" instead of seeing the overview dialog after I closed the option > > > dialog I used. > > > > Right. So? > > With the old way I came back to the main dialog either way. Wrong. With the old way you'd have two dialogs which are not grouped together (like with a modal dialog). That means that other windows/dialogs may show up inbetween these two dialogs and closing e.g. the appearance settings won't necessary reveal the settings overview. I'm marking this bug as WONTFIX. It's an enhancement request we won't implement.
> > > Nothing is standard, you are right. But the problem is that the new dialog > > > itself is not how xfce normally does things > > No other application has as much dialogs as the settings manager has. Given > that, it makes sense to think twice about how you display these dialogs. The > old settings manager just displayed them, the new one embedds them. We think > the new way is neat because it avoids cluttering up your desktop with dialogs. > So there's reasoning behind doing this. If you want stand-alone dialogs, use > the menu. Why not do it like every other option dialog in every other program? Icons to select the option group to the left, options to the right. Everyone who remotely touched software in Linux knows this paradigm. If you really wanted to reduce the number of windows there are already proven good ways. > It's funny how you talk about everyone else without actually knowing what they > would do. Is that supposed to make your arguments look stronger? Doesn't work > for me, I'm sorry. No, my developer senses are tingling. Or was it my common sense who whispered me that he wanted me to shut up with some bait? > > > You either have to select the small icon or the text. The whole box around it > > > is a no click area. The old version allowed to click the whole box which made > > > it easier/faster to open a dialog. > > > > Then I'd consider that a bug in the icon view, not a deficiency of the model. > > IMHO it's not a bug, it's just how the icon view works. Thunar behaves the > same. This would be a separate bug anyway. I only used thunars list view and large icon view. But reducing the hitable area by half isn't user friendly. > Sorry, Martin, I couldn't agree more with Brian. > > We're not going to revert the settings manager GUI in 4.6. Maybe we'll change > it in 4.8, but probably not back to the old behaviour. I actually find the new > behaviour very convenient and you brought up no arguments to justify going back > to the old way of doing it. And you never responded to my initial arguments or any of them in a view of usability. Tell me why the new option dialog is easier or as easy to use than the old one except that you have now 1 window instead of 2.
(In reply to comment #7) > > > > Nothing is standard, you are right. But the problem is that the new dialog > > > > itself is not how xfce normally does things > > > > No other application has as much dialogs as the settings manager has. Given > > that, it makes sense to think twice about how you display these dialogs. The > > old settings manager just displayed them, the new one embedds them. We think > > the new way is neat because it avoids cluttering up your desktop with dialogs. > > So there's reasoning behind doing this. If you want stand-alone dialogs, use > > the menu. > > Why not do it like every other option dialog in every other program? Icons to > select the option group to the left, options to the right. Everyone who > remotely touched software in Linux knows this paradigm. Maybe we'll do that for 4.8. I agree that the overview button solution is far from perfect. But we're in feature freeze for 4.6 so it'll remain this way for now. The battle is over. Why not do something joyful now instead of continuing this?
> Maybe we'll do that for 4.8. I agree that the overview button solution is far > from perfect. But we're in feature freeze for 4.6 so it'll remain this way for > now. > > The battle is over. Why not do something joyful now instead of continuing this? Ok, I can live with that.
seems to be reverted to old behaviour. Will set it to Fixed.