
Introduction to Gnome 3 - audidude
http://www.gnome3.org/
======
mikedouglas
Not that I want to beat up on a open source project, but for a desktop
environment focused on ease of use, there are some very odd things overlooked.

1\. How am I supposed to know what these icons do? Why even title them?
[https://img.skitch.com/20110118-biweei4eyuey217fisi7ks2d9f.p...](https://img.skitch.com/20110118-biweei4eyuey217fisi7ks2d9f.png)

2\. Eight of the eleven icons in the dock have significant title clipping. Did
no one notice this?
[https://img.skitch.com/20110118-e1ykw7u3qf3gwmuhxaug28p5mr.p...](https://img.skitch.com/20110118-e1ykw7u3qf3gwmuhxaug28p5mr.png)

Usability isn't minimalism. It isn't translucent windows, rounded corners, or
stark blacks and gradients. It's these details, and about a hundred others
that I'll run into while using your software. These details can either add
friction to whatever problem I'm trying to solve (and therefore add marginally
to my bad mood), or they can remove it. If you don't ask these questions, you
aren't even giving your users a chance.

~~~
acabal
People like to beat up on MS a lot, but the differences between the Windows 7
GUI (or iOS GUI) and Gnome 3 really highlight the disadvantage that a bunch of
spare-time developers who say to themselves, "well, I think our users will
like text truncation, let's throw it in tomorrow!" are at versus a big company
with millions to spend on thoughtful UI design, graphics, research, and focus
groups.

Windows 7 has its problems too, but it's clear to me that the changes Gnome 3
is bringing are nothing more than what some out-of-touch developers _think_ is
what users want, without having actually asked users. Maybe I'm wrong on that
assertion but that sure is the feeling I'm getting from this project.

Gnome 3 would have benefited greatly from a series of focus groups before
development started or from snagging a high-profile UI expert to rap them on
the knuckles whenever they had a bright idea like using 12 different font
colors, sizes, and styles on the already-overwhelming dashboard screen.

~~~
cturner
I think there's no substitute for clued-in developers.

Focus groups produced the interface overhaul to Windows Vista and 7. Rather
than building on an existing, successful interface, they decided to be more
mac-like, and managed to make the interface prettier but much yet less usable
in the process.

I agree, gnome fonts are yuck. Even in the screenshot on the frontpage the
fonts look awful - both in the text document and the dropdown menu headings.

~~~
unconed
The problem with the fonts is more than just aesthetics. It's about gamma
correction.

For various reasons, the brightness of an RGB color value is not linear. This
means that a checkerboard of white/black pixels will not look the same from
afar as solid 50% gray. The correct shade is something like ~75%.

When anti-aliasing crisp details such as letters, this is incredibly
important. Without gamma correction, there will be a noticeable change in
brightness when a shape lies between pixels vs when it is pixel-aligned.

I think this is why Linux geeks tend to be vehemently opposed to anti-
aliasing; they don't realize the rendering method they're using is crap.

------
bouncingsoul
I'm amazed by how dumb and severe the icon label truncation is. That screams
to me that it was designed without testing it with real content.

How can anyone see _Network C…, Network P…, Network P…_ in the preference
panel and not wonder if the truncation is too agressive?

~~~
rsl7
Truncation like that also happens on the Mac when the Finder's grid spacing is
set too tight. They may have overlooked it for the screenshot.

~~~
bouncingsoul
I'm not criticizing truncation. You need to do it on long names. I'm saying it
looks like the designers of the GNOME UI are using truncation as a quick fix
for a flawed design.

Besides, truncation in OS X is much much smarter:

<http://i.imgur.com/MN3Q2.png>

Notice how the tracking (spacing between letters) in the first item gets
tightened to make it fit? It looks a little squished, but it's much preferable
to reading dots.

The last item had to be truncated, but it happens in the middle and keeps the
useful end information visible.

I was being honest when I said I was amazed at the GNOME truncation. I think
an operating system UI that can't handle the names of its killer apps (e.g.,
OpenOffic…) lost its way somewhere.

~~~
rbanffy
> Besides, truncation in OS X is much much smarter:

Don't forget Apple (among others) has tons of silly patents regarding text
rendering that Gnome developers have to program around while everybody else
can just cross-license with their own silly little patents. It may be possible
they simply cannot afford the risk of doing the obvious thing.

~~~
joe_the_user
Could you clarify this?

Do you actually know that Gnome is actively "code around" some alleged patent
violation?

Programming around any imaginable patent violation actually seems really bad,
especially given that software patents aren't looking as strong as they once
were. I vaguely Linus or someone saying it's better not to research existing
patents, it limits your liability. But just on the principle of letting
corporations covertly bully you, it seems bad. It seems much better to force
the companies sue you and see what happens.

My googling shows Apple has a patent on the App-bar but there are plenty of
App-bars out-there. Red-hat apparently was worried to remove a dock but the
screen shots we see here clearly show something like a dock. But even thread
discussing that situation sounded murky. Docky still seems to be distributed
for example.

Apple has patent on "Open Type" but that also is used heavily in Linux.

~~~
jauco
Spring loaded folders: [http://mail.gnome.org/archives/nautilus-
list/2003-February/m...](http://mail.gnome.org/archives/nautilus-
list/2003-February/msg00109.html)

~~~
joe_the_user
OK...

Well, if this is wide-spread, I find frustrating, even infuriating that it
only appears in bits and pieces rather than there being a large "this is what
software patents are imposing on us". The worst possible thing is to let this
happen silently.

------
senko
Wrote a long comment and then the web bug ate it :-(

In a nutshell: it's more of an introduction to GNOME Shell, which is just one
part of GNOME3. It's going to be used by default, by old interface will still
be available for those who want it. The UX is probably the least finished part
yet, since a massive amount of work first went in invisible improvements for
v3 (such as gobject-introspection).

Something the HN crowd will like: the Shell is written in JavaScript, has
bindings to low-level libraries using gobject-introspection, uses JS libraries
like jQuery, and comes with its own FireBug-like tool for inspection and
modification at runtime. Since most of the look&feel is done in JS, you can
just jump right in and hack left and right. One of most impressive demos at
GUADEC2010 had a couple of JS oneliners doing various special effects on the
desktop. Also, the whole thing is themeable in CSS, which is a lot nicer than
doing gtkstyle theming.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
> Also, the whole thing is themeable in CSS

Does this mean the ludicrously generous padding will be as easy to change as

    
    
        html * { padding: 2px!important; }
    

That would make me _very_ happy.

~~~
senko
Well, HTML/DOM is not used, but you should be able to do something of the
sorts to the UI elements, yeah.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
That's great to hear! :)

------
vilya
A lot of effort has gone into this; it's a shame to see so many disparaging
posts here. I think the developers should be applauded for their work.

Between this and Ubuntu's plans to adopt Wayland in place of X, there are some
interesting times ahead for Linux on the desktop. I, for one, am looking
forward to seeing how it all plays out.

~~~
snprbob86
The developers absolutely deserve to be applauded for their work, but
declaring it as "simply beautiful" is almost laughable. I think that it's
actually quite ugly. And even if you disagree, I don't think it's fair to call
your own work beautiful unless you've proven that the overwhelming majority
consistently enjoys your aesthetic.

~~~
rbanffy
For a lot of people, Justin Bieber is a great musician. Popularity is not a
trustworthy indicator of artistic merit.

~~~
BCM43
_Popularity is not a trustworthy indicator of artistic merit._

How else would you define it?

~~~
rbanffy
Artistic quality is one of those things that defy definition. It may be that
it's aesthetically pleasing, or it may be that its design communicate some
other inner quality or a completely different idea. It may be that the inner
quality, in itself, has some aesthetic quality, much like a beautiful
mathematical proof.

------
puls
They're trying to sell "simply beautiful" but all of the images on the front
page have serious antialiasing problems.

Huh.

~~~
rbanffy
Stable software or a beautiful website... Tough choice when you have limited
resources... I'm glad their priorities are right.

------
fingerprinter
As far as open source desktops go, I'm rather excited about both Unity and
Gnome3, but for very different reasons.

I think Unity, which is my preferred desktop right now, is shaping up to be
the nicest, prettiest and easiest to use desktop open source has ever had. I
might even consider it to be the first open source desktop I could point my
mother to and she could use it straight away. I'm fully expecting Unity to be
just plain awesome in several cycles.

Gnome3 with the JS core is open for extension like we've never seen before in
open source. I say that b/c of the ease with which someone could extend
now...like it or not, JS has a lower barrier to entry than traditional tech
used in linux desktops. I can't wait to see what people create for Gnome3 via
this extension scheme.

I know I'll have both installed for sure...fun times ahead!

------
apakatt
"Simply Beautiful". It feels weird that the fonts on the site are better than
on the screen shots. The font on the top and in the "Messaging built-in" is
really grandma-sized and not really beautiful.

As said before, the theme and icons are really really lacking. I'm sure
however that it will work great (and look great after some modifications like
adding the Ubuntu font and Faenza Icons).

------
generalk
Is this information still relevant?

From the Try It link (<http://www.gnome3.org/tryit.html>):

 _GNOME 3 is under active development and will not be completed until April
2010. We hope to be able to provide live USB images really soon. Watch this
space!_

~~~
antimatter15
It appears the date has changed to April 2011

------
biju
>A lot of effort has gone into this; it's a shame to see so many disparaging
posts here. I think the developers should be applauded for their work.

bad work is bad. GNOME developers are again ditching code that works (and it
sucks).

<http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html> >This is, I think, the most common way for
my bug reports to open source software projects to ever become closed. I
report bugs; they go unread for a year, sometimes two; and then (surprise!)
that module is rewritten from scratch -- and the new maintainer can't be
bothered to check whether his new version has actually solved any of the known
problems that existed in the previous version.

------
zecg
Gnome 3 Alpha, codenamed "Jumping the Shark". So many things shown are
ridiculous - the spacing, the truncated titles in the ribbon-thingy, the
seeming changes in the concept of workspaces. Why are dropbox and the
wireless-thingy broken off from other system tray icons? What is the rationale
for the changes in basic concepts? At the moment, I'm still using Gnome on all
computers. This version might be just what I need to finally start using a
minimal tiling manager.

------
cmeiklejohn
Ubuntu's decision to move to Unity made me go back to Debian for
GNOME/Clearlooks for the first time in a while, but what am I going to do now
with the way GNOME 3 looks?

~~~
viraptor
It seems that you switched before you tried. I don't know much about unity,
but I was following the beginnings of gnome shell and I can't wait to get it
in my hands. Activities / creating desktops as you need them is exactly what I
wanted. But there are other cool things included too.

~~~
cmeiklejohn
No, I used unity in the netbook edition in both 10.04 and 10.10. I switched
when I heard it would become the default.

------
lanolin
> "Simply beautiful", "Distraction-free computing", "Everything at your
> fingertips", "completely redesigned for GNOME 3", "And much, much more", ...

This page reads much like a corporate ad.

> "GNOME 3 is crammed full of new features."

Is that a good thing?

For Gnome, I want: more streamlining, compartmentalization, removal of
deprecated features, and optimization. Make it smaller and tighter -- only
_add_ parts conservatively and if they offer great value.

------
jamesaguilar
Gnome 3 "Made of Ugly." How is it possible that the aliasing on those fonts in
the example image is allowed on the front page of their marketing. Every third
line is a different size and has a blurry appearance.

~~~
carussell
That's the result of bad post-processing on the image.

------
zvrba
Based on the screenshots, font rendering -- the most important thing -- still
seems to suck big time.

------
kingsidharth
>Simply Beautiful?

Seriously? Since when Beauty is that top priority for GUI? Usability, Gnome,
Usability!

~~~
drivingmenuts
How much of the eye-candy (IM, etc.) is so woven into the desktop that it's
impossible to remove?

With OS X and Windows, I _add_ the extraneous stuff - it doesn't come pre-
installed and pre-enabled.

I'll stick w/XFCE, thanks. It's based on Gnome, but it doesn't have the cruft.

~~~
archangel_one
What? In Windows 7, the contemporary version to GNOME 3, all the flashy
effects come on by default - or at least they did on this machine. You have to
turn them off if you don't want them. IIRC OSX is basically the same... isn't
it a little counter-productive having a whole lot of pretty effects if they're
off by default?

------
emef
typo on <http://www.gnome3.org/faq.html>? It says "Commons Questions and
Answers", where I think it means "Common ..." Didn't see a contact link so
maybe a webdev will see it here.

------
md81544
"AN OVERVIEW AT A GLACE (sic)" ???

------
drivebyacct2
I'm sorry, but that Metacity theme and even the GTK+ theme are really lacking.
They lack the polish that Meerkat's Ambiance theme has (everytime I post a
screenshot of stock 10.10 I get comments asking what the themes are).

It's a shame, I think Gnome-Shell looks cool and I think GNOME3 brings a lot
of UI/UX changes that have been needed for a while, but they're not doing
themselves any favors giving the actual appearance a real chance to shine. The
"GNOME" default icons are a pity, too.

edit, I guess it's not Metacity any longer... Mutter.

~~~
junkbit
That is an old gtk theme. The GTK3 look fits better with the new titlebar

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakubsteiner/5201953378/sizes/o...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakubsteiner/5201953378/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

~~~
drivebyacct2
It's getting better, but that screenshot has plenty of it's own problems. That
titlebar, menu, icon row and tabs takes up like 200+ px. Versus like 60 with
Chrome.

What's the _deal_?

~~~
jamesgeck0
Large objects are easier to target. (That, and Chrome doesn't have a menu bar,
which would at least bump it up to 80px.)

