On May 12, 2015 6:59 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" <sgallagh@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 06:02 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > * Shell extensions: As long as we're going to offer them, we
> > > shouldn't
> > > relegate them to Tweak Tool. Perhaps gnome-software would be a
> > > better
> > > location than gnome-control-center, but either would be better than
> > > Tweak Tool. (But the gnome-shell browser plugin is very crashy at
> > > worst and unreliable at best, so we should fix that first.)
> >
> > Extensions is what happens when designers and developers don't agree.
> > If you know you want extensions, installing gnome-tweak-tool is only
> > a
> > step away. If people want to integrate that better, they can add
> > support
> > to the gnome-shell web browser plugin to show whether or not gnome
> > -tweak-tool
> > is installed, and launch Software to install it through the browser
> > if not.
> >
> At the same time, I think it would be very useful to poll GNOME users
> for what extensions they are using (if any). I think you'll find that
> it's very likely that more users have installed (for example) the
> Alternate Tab extension than are using the default behavior (and it
> would also be interesting to know whether those using the default
> behavior know about the extension).
> Some other extensions that I personally know a great many people cannot
> live without:
> * Topicons: I understand that systray icons are not the way the GNOME
> designers want things to work, but FAR too much software exists today
> that relies on these icons. Shunting them to the message tray (pre
> -3.16) or into a tiny little expansion box (post-3.16) or hiding them
> entirely (Wayland) are not valid solutions for this software. Call it
> legacy software if you wish, but not having a sensible compatibility
> layer is harmful to users.
> * Window List: For many users attempting to locate the window they want
> across a number of workstations, having the window list at the bottom
> of the screen provides a very quick way to see what is on every
> workspace. It's far easier to process a short line of information than
> to 1) go into the Overview. 2) start paging through each workspace. 3)
> scan the entire screen for the window that matches what you want.
> Don't get me wrong: the GNOME designers have made many excellent
> choices: I wouldn't be running the GNOME environment if I thought
> otherwise. But some choices have fallen well into the realm of "perfect
> is the enemy of good". It doesn't matter how "clean" an experience
> feels on paper if people trying to use it get frustrated. There are
> many extensions out there to alleviate some of these pains, but there
> are two problems:
> 1) Extensions aren't common knowledge. Most people assume that GNOME is
> immutable and limited to only the few choices allowed by gnome
> -settings. Related to the above: no matter how easy it might be to
> install GNOME Tweak Tool, it's not *discoverable*. There are no hints
> anywhere that you might want or need it. There are no links from Fedora
> to popular extension pages, etc.
> 2) Extensions aren't (and as I understand it, cannot be) stable API. So
> even when someone has discovered an extension that they really cannot
> survive without, there's no guarantee that it won't be broken on the
> next update. This problem isn't solvable by GNOME, but it can be
> solvable by Fedora: we could identify a set of high-value extensions
> and work with their authors to have them ready before we release new
> versions of Workstation.
> ...
> > > * Power: The "power button action" and "when laptop lid is closed"
> > > settings would be good to have in the Power panel. At least we need
> > > the laptop lid setting; that's easy and commonly-requested.
> >
> > Absolutely not. Rationale is in the gnome-settings-daemon bugs and
> > commit messages for that.
> >
> Sorry Bastien, but "go look at the git/bz history" is not helpful. I'm
> also curious why we don't allow users to select lid-close options. At
> least a pointer to one such example of the rationale would be useful.
> > > * Top bar: Maybe show date in clock could live in the Date & Time
> > > panel, where the 12/24 hour setting is.
> >
> > We already show it inside the menu, is that not enough?
> >
> When someone wants to know the date, it's usually because they need to
> use it for something (like signing a check, etc.) right now. Needing
> more than a quick glance to the top of the screen is wasteful,
> particularly since the GNOME design policy is to have none of that
> space used for anything else. This is one of those cases where I cannot
> figure out why the default doesn't simply include the date. I can
> understand having seconds or week numbers in the tweak tool; those are
> far less interesting.
> --
> desktop mailing list
> desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

I completely agree with Stephen.  Extensions are probably the norm, not the exception - and it doesn't take hard data to see that extensions are fun and often useful.  It is *not* an insult to upstream design theory.  Enable themes and drop in behavior extensions (which gnome-shell has done well, besides API stability and g-s-s pretending they don't exist) and creative, enthusiastic communities spring up.  People that are passionate about using your product are a Good Thing.