[Panel-devel] The ALI: do we really need or want it?

[Janne Ojaniemi]

On Friday 06 January 2006 22:59, Björn Balazs wrote:

Hello

First of all: thank you for your feedback, it's greatly appreciated :). I'll 
go and take a look at the URL you provided.

> But there is a second thing: There are just too many applications,
> documents (or content) and System Settings. And nobody - exept the
> individual user himself - knows what a user needs more or less frequently.
> Therefore we have to provide easy ways for the user to say: this is
> something I need more frequently (or less respective).

Oh, absolutely! And there would be a place in the menu that would display the 
commonly used content.

> Every user has his 
> own approach on using a computer. These different menu-areas should only
> give a framework to the users.

Yes. But the system should offer a sensible default. Right now KDE offers 
application-centric approach to the user. We could simply replace that 
approach with content-centric approach. The user could use some other scheme 
if he wants to though.

> This framework has to be filled according to 
> the very personal needs of the user. If I do not posses a digital camera, I
> do not need prominent access to it - if I do professional photography on
> the other hand even the second klick could be one klick too much for
> starting the appropriate application.

True. But even non-photographers come in to possession of large number of 
pictures. Of course the menu could be dynamic: if the user has no music on 
his computer, the "Music"-entry in the menu would not be shown (for example).

> I would just like to answer directly to one of your points, Janne:
> > As you are propably thinking, having all the entries in
> > Control Center crammed in here, would make the system quite messy and
> > hard to use. That's why the number of configuration-entries would be
> > trimmed.
>
> That is exactly what we should not do (Remember the
> Linus-gnome-discussion ? :).

I do not advocate removal of features or configurability :). I advocate 
trimming the number of entries in the GUI. There is a difference between 
those two approaches. Take Konqueror for example (a separate app, but it 
serves as a good example): I have FIVE different places to change settings: 
Configure shortcuts, Configure Toolbars, Configure Extensions, Configure 
Konqueror, Configure Spell Checking. The main one of those is "Configure 
Konqueror". And if I look in to there, I see EIGHTEEN different categories, 
several with several tabs. Those numbers could be trimmed, and they could be 
trimmed in a way that we don't sacrifice configurability.

> I would strongly argue for letting go of the desktop-metaphor. A modern
> computer (and with it KDE) - is much more than a desktop. It is your
> personal control center - being a telefon, your music box, your TV, your...
> well you all know much better by yourself. A desktop is something that is
> not an appropriate description for it. And KDE has to be more than a
> DESKTOP Environment - It has to Kontrol Dynamic Environments... Sticking to
> the Desktop-metaphor rather limits instead of inspires the users today. 33
> years ago the Xerox Alto inspired users with that metaphor. Would you think
> that your Desktops allows you to change the volume of the stereo? My
> Grandma doesn't.

I agree :). "The Dynamic User Environment" or something.