On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 08:58:53PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 01:21:51AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > One subset that I've identified is the one I mentioned -- the sysadmin who
> > runs RHEL or Fedora server systems and has Fedora on his or her desktop. The
> > entire LISA conference was _full_ of these people. As I mentioned in the
> > earlier thread, they don't all use Gnome, but they do use Fedora, and very
> > well _could_ use Gnome if we tailored the experience to their needs.
> In what ways are their needs different to those of a naive desktop user?
> The desktop exists to let you start applications, manage windows and
> receive notifications. Do sysadmins expect different prioritisation of
> notifications? Do they manage windows differently? Do we not make it
> easy enough to launch the applications they need?
I mentioned two specific things based on feedback I've gotten: better
multiple monitor support (probably good in general), and better handling of
multiple terminal windows. Some other particular things about the current
Gnome design also get pretty strong feedback among the sysadmins I talk to,
but I don't know enough to say if it's specific or universal (dislike for
the "shield" and wanting to turn it off, for a representative example).
Why would sysadmins object more strongly to the shield implementation
than anyone else? Better multiple monitor handling sounds like it would
be good in general, and improving handling of multiple terminal windows
in some way doesn't seem incompatible with anything that we'd like to
offer other types of user.
There may be some greater degree of change-aversion, and possibly an
attachment to some particular Unix UI conventions (mouse behavior, say), but
overall I don't think this group likes nice new things any less. If there is
a different expectation of managing windows and notifications, it's a
general desire for a clean, simple design where the system gets out of the
way -- I think that's why the shield is annoying in a way that seems
irrationally out of proportion, because it's very in-your-face.
I don't really understand. You type your password, hit enter and it goes
away. There are other ways of interacting with it that make more sense
on systems without a hardware keyboard, but the shield doesn't make it
any harder to unlock my screen.
Okay, that sounds good to me too. But I'd also like to put it the
around: Let's not compromise our appeal to technical users and contributors
in an effort to appeal to a non-specific "general user" who isn't really
defined except by the implication that anyone who doesn't like some design
decision clearly doesn't qualify as the target.
People who are interested in supporting more technical users and
contributors should continue to do so, but should avoid compromising the
accessibility of the OS to users who aren't. So far I haven't seen
anybody give examples of where satisfying non-technical use cases is
incompatible with giving more technical users what they want.
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org