[haiku-development] Re: RFC: Packages and the Deskbar menu
- From: John Scipione <jscipione@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:50:02 -0400
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Stephan Aßmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> Organized does not have to mean categories. A flat list is organized too.
>
> I would argue that the name of an application, which would be about the only
> means of organization in a flat list, is even more arbitrary than any
> category could be.
Name and icon of the app, and I disagree, the name of the app is what
you're looking for, the category is an unhelpful distraction.
>>>> Except when they don't... you are seriously going to tell me that
>>>> Apple and Google have figured out a foolproof categorization system
>>>> for apps? I find that notion to be arrogant and ignorant.
>>>
>>> Who cares if it is foolproof? It cannot be, as the application developers
>>> are responsible for finding the category (or rather categories) that matter.
>>> This doesn't really matter, though.
>>
>> It does matter. Arbitrary categories are worse than none as I'll explain
>> below.
>
> I couldn't find any explanation below.
Apps hidden under labyrinthine menus with unremarkable and arbitrary
names was my explanation.
> Applications don't fall into categories? Of course they do. At least the
> majority of them do and that would be the whole point.
It's not that apps don't fall into categories, it's just that they
don't fall into universally recognized categories. What category does
the Sum-It spreadsheet fall under for example? It might fall under
"Productivity" or "Business" or "Spreadsheets" or any other number of
categories. Since there's no universally recognized standard, I as the
user am left to guess what the packager thought was a good category to
put it under, that is, I am left guessing.
>> And it isn't a one time cost, arbitrary categories make it harder to find
>> the app your looking for each and every time. I'll never remember the
>> category some developer decided on for their app so I pay the price
>> thousands of times.
>
> When Axel says he would remember the category the first time, maybe he
> exaggerated a little bit. When you say you will never remember it, you are
> totally blowing things out of proportion and it doesn't make your argument
> stronger. Of course you will remember it, just like you would remember the
> name and position in the flat list eventually.
But I don't remember it, since the category is arbitrary I have
relearn it each time, oh that's right Sum-It is under Business, I
forgot! This isn't a theoretical problem, it's a very real problem
that I face each and every time I used category based app systems like
those on Linux.
>> It's not a one time cost as you assert, I'll never be able to remember which
>> category Terminal got stuck in and I'll have to guess and hunt for it each
>> time.
>
> This is totally unconvincing. Even if you use an app only once half a year, I
> am pretty sure you would remember it the second time, or use one of the other
> means to get to the app, like search.
Many times I speak in allegory and I like to bring up the average
user, the every man that will fall into the traps that us software
developers won't, but, I'm not doing this here, I am speaking from
direct personal experience. I can't remember where Terminal for
example is located on Ubuntu, I have to hunt for it each time, I'm not
making this up, it is a real problem that I experience all the time,
don't minimize it.
> To me at least, it is obvious that categories can be implemented along side
> search and the flat list and even a manual menu. But having only a flat list
> and search and manual Be menu like we have now would be very disappointing
> for me. It's no solution at all, to an annoying problem.
Sure, the current implementation is imperfect, but, categories don't
help, they make the problem worse.
I'd like to present two websites that illustrate the two ways of
thinking. The first is the Gnome 3 page found here:
http://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/
The second is the Cinnamon page found here:
http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/
The two methods, flat list vs. categories is contrasted in the first
image on each page because it is a central difference between the two
DEs.
I cannot think of a better way to show that a flat paginated list of
applications represents the new and improved way of organizing apps
illustrated by Gnome 3, while relegating apps to categories is the old
way illustrated by Cinnamon. Please do not repeat the mistakes of
Gnome 2 and Cinnamon, instead embrace the progress that has been made.
Other related posts:
