PDA

View Full Version : Location of Window Buttons



Pages : 1 [2] 3

magneze
March 9th, 2010, 05:43 PM
I don't think a majority of users would have a problem with that, everybody is always complaining that "Gimp's not Photoshop", or "Gimp doesn't look like Photoshop" or "until Gimp looks like Photoshop it'll never be the standard", nobody seems to care about originality, I think that that's the problem.I think you're confusing cloning with consistency. Cloning is bad, consistency is good and generally helps the usability of a system.

Toadinator
March 9th, 2010, 05:46 PM
I don't think a majority of users would have a problem with that, everybody is always complaining that "Gimp's not Photoshop", or "Gimp doesn't look like Photoshop" or "until Gimp looks like Photoshop it'll never be the standard", nobody seems to care about originality, I think that that's the problem.
This is a somewhat different issue. GIMP isn't supposed to be like Photoshop and it was originally designed as its own independent program, not a Photoshop clone. I like its interface personally and the multiple windows concept, once you get the hang of it, feels a lot better than standard single-window modes you usually see. The issue here isn't that Ubuntu's trying to be different, it's that Ubuntu's trying to be different after years of supporting standards and defaults and in the process breaking quite a few other themes, and not providing an easy way to switch (gconf-editor does not count; my mom could never use it). "Different" isn't always better; sometimes we should just stick with what works and has worked for years, especially if the reason for being different is, well, for being different.


I'm embarrassed that Canonical is supporting the clone mentality, they're not representing Linux in a positive light, I feel they're telling the word Linux users are copycats.

This is like Face/Off without the part where the hero gets his identity back.

"Begun, the Clone War has!" - Yoda
Agreed.

Madspyman
March 9th, 2010, 05:49 PM
I think you're confusing cloning with consistency. Cloning is bad, consistency is good and generally helps the usability of a system.

Consistency is becoming the collateral damage of changing a piece of software to a clone.

uRock
March 9th, 2010, 05:52 PM
I don't think a majority of users would have a problem with that, everybody is always complaining that "Gimp's not Photoshop", or "Gimp doesn't look like Photoshop" or "until Gimp looks like Photoshop it'll never be the standard", nobody seems to care about originality, I think that that's the problem.

I'm embarrassed that Canonical is supporting the clone mentality, they're not representing Linux in a positive light, I feel they're telling the word Linux users are copycats.

This is like Face/Off without the part where the hero gets his identity back.

"Begun, the Clone War has!" - Yoda
They/d telling the world that if they didn't make a change. I think a few people have pointed out that the new buttons are not in the same order as Mac. It has also been pointed out that the devs may be trying to make it easier to drag windows by the toolbar.

It is not a matter of Gomp and PS looking alike that people want, it is a matter of functionality, but that is not the subject of this thread.

Merk42
March 9th, 2010, 05:53 PM
Different" isn't always better; sometimes we should just stick with what works and has worked for years, especially if the reason for being different is, well, for being different.

And if you're going to be different, at least explain why.

It's been almost a week and we have still not heard such an explanation.

Toadinator
March 9th, 2010, 05:59 PM
Consistency is becoming the collateral damage of changing a piece of software to a clone.

...what? There's nothing wrong with consistency. If every single application looked totally different from one another, would people like it? I don't think so. Consistency is a good thing and the Human Interface Guidelines for different operating systems and desktop environments are written for the sake of consistency. Using the same toolkits, using the same window manager, using the same general design, using the same icons, etc; all of these things are important for consistency. Why should Ubuntu have a change that not only breaks themes, but came without warning or prior testing and is totally different from every other Linux-based distribution? If someone from Ubuntu switches to Fedora or Mint or PCLinuxOS or something, everything will be consistent with what they're used to by default. If someone switches to/from Lucid, however, they're going to be in for a bit of a learning curve.

Just a thought, but is Ubuntu trying to be "the" Linux distribution? I sense the faint smell of lock-in in the air...

magneze
March 9th, 2010, 05:59 PM
Consistency is becoming the collateral damage of changing a piece of software to a clone.Almost - the buttons are different from OSX too - thereby satisfying no-one. What is annoying is that there is absolute silence on the reasoning behind this change.

Madspyman
March 9th, 2010, 06:20 PM
Almost - the buttons are different from OSX too - thereby satisfying no-one. What is annoying is that there is absolute silence on the reasoning behind this change.

I'd like to hear a reason too.

OS X left oriented buttons work because of a global file menu. Ubuntu copied a feature but not the reason that feature worked, it's like a broken Mac.

Toadinator
March 9th, 2010, 06:22 PM
I'd like to hear a reason too.

OS X left oriented buttons work because of a global file menu. Ubuntu copied a feature but not the reason that feature worked, it's like a broken Mac.

+1
Agreed.

Merk42
March 9th, 2010, 06:24 PM
I'd like to hear a reason too.

OS X left oriented buttons work because of a global file menu. Ubuntu copied a feature but not the reason that feature worked, it's like a broken Mac.

This.

So many times people (not just Canonical) copy what someone else did, without learning why they did it.

linusr
March 9th, 2010, 06:32 PM
I'd like to hear a reason too.

OS X left oriented buttons work because of a global file menu. Ubuntu copied a feature but not the reason that feature worked, it's like a broken Mac.

Menu bar/tool bar are oriented towards left, then why not window buttons?

doas777
March 9th, 2010, 06:34 PM
I'll just change my gtk theme if I don;t like them. I have one box with an os 9.4 theme that puts them on the left.

Merk42
March 9th, 2010, 06:35 PM
Menu bar/tool bar are oriented towards left, then why not window buttons?

...and why not indicator, and clock, and user, and workspace switcher, and trash?

Because of what I and others pointed out, it's too crowded and results in a user clicking on one thing when they meant to click on another.

Uncle Spellbinder
March 9th, 2010, 06:36 PM
...and why not indicator, and clock, and user, and workspace switcher, and trash?

Because of what I and others pointed out, it's too crowded and results in a user clicking on one thing when they meant to click on another.

+1

Common sense, really.

Merk42
March 9th, 2010, 06:38 PM
I'll just change my gtk theme if I don;t like them. I have one box with an os 9.4 theme that puts them on the left.

Except even if you switch themes they STILL remain on the left.

You have to use a gconf editor to put them on the right

SeanBlader
March 9th, 2010, 06:40 PM
I like them on the left. I very rarely use the application menu, so having it go away is fine with me, and moving those buttons to the left means you can make the titlebar into a tab at the top of the window, similar to BeOS. I'd do it on my current desktop but the icons are purpose built with shading, so it ends up looking weird.

And the desktop is already cluttered enough with buttons and widgets and icons and stuff, it would be nice to have some open space.

doas777
March 9th, 2010, 06:43 PM
Except even if you switch themes they STILL remain on the left.

You have to use a gconf editor to put them on the rightreally? I hadn't realized they were making that kind of change to the gtk theming engine.

godhika
March 9th, 2010, 07:57 PM
really? I hadn't realized they were making that kind of change to the gtk theming engine.

Not the theme engine, but the default gconf-settings. I guess this is because of client side decoration diddn't made it into lucid (and a good reason why they tried to put it in)

gsmanners
March 9th, 2010, 08:29 PM
It's somewhat more obvious in Xfce, but GTK+ themes have nothing to do with the window decorations. That comes from the window manager (which, in the case of Gnome, is Metacity).

doas777
March 9th, 2010, 08:55 PM
It's somewhat more obvious in Xfce, but GTK+ themes have nothing to do with the window decorations. That comes from the window manager (which, in the case of Gnome, is Metacity).

interesting. the change occured after I downloaded a gtk+ theme from gnome-look, and stays when I run 'compiz --replace'. perhaps I need greater understanding of how the 3 work together, as I believe that by activating compiz, I am disabling metacity.

ALIENDUDE5300
March 9th, 2010, 09:17 PM
This.

So many times people (not just Canonical) copy what someone else did, without learning why they did it.

I agree as well...

sv87411
March 9th, 2010, 09:48 PM
I agree with all the 'right hand siders' views on how badly thought out this change is.

I will do one of two things...

... If it's easy, I'll just move the icons back to where they should be.

........If it's not, I'll stick with Karmic for now, keep an eye on whether the Ubuntu devs see sense and if they don't, eventually register my disgust by moving to another distro.

The Ubuntu devs (and especially whoever thought up this hair brained change) need to acknowledge the depth of feeling on this issue and explain their rationale for the change. If they don't then Ubuntu has turned into a distro dictatorship.

gsmanners
March 9th, 2010, 10:00 PM
Ubuntu has always been a dictatorship, but with the understanding that El Presidente Mark Shuttleworth is doing what's best for us. :)

Merk42
March 9th, 2010, 10:08 PM
Ubuntu has always been a dictatorship, but with the understanding that El Presidente Mark Shuttleworth is doing what's best for us. :)

El Presidente?
you mean Self Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life?

VMC
March 9th, 2010, 10:57 PM
I agree with all the 'right hand siders' views on how badly thought out this change is.

I will do one of two things...

... If it's easy, I'll just move the icons back to where they should be.
...
It is...


gconftool-2 --set "/apps/metacity/general/button_layout" --type string ":maximize,minimize,close"

d5j9
March 9th, 2010, 11:06 PM
It ain't broke, don't fix it. Nothing is wrong with windows on the right, and everyone is used to it. Leave them there.

forcecore
March 9th, 2010, 11:07 PM
It is...


gconftool-2 --set "/apps/metacity/general/button_layout" --type string ":maximize,minimize,close"

Icons must be on right like it always had, if people want them left then use even million gazillion commands i do not care but MOST people are former BillGates users so................

OR provide option in Windows preferences
OR integrate this on out of box http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/easy-gui-window-button-switcher-for.html

LTS must be especially correct and easy to use...

ALIENDUDE5300
March 9th, 2010, 11:12 PM
It is...


gconftool-2 --set "/apps/metacity/general/button_layout" --type string ":maximize,minimize,close"

The problem isn't it being easy or not -- the problem is most people will assume it's always like that, not even bother searching, and go back to windows. Also, that isn't a proper fix... Minimize should be to the left of maximize, like in karmic. The proper command should be:


gconftool-2 --set "/apps/metacity/general/button_layout" --type string ":minimize,maximize,close"

uRock
March 9th, 2010, 11:22 PM
The problem isn't it being easy or not -- the problem is most people will assume it's always like that, not even bother searching, and go back to windows. Also, that isn't a proper fix... Minimize should be to the left of maximize, like in karmic. The proper command should be:


gconftool-2 --set "/apps/metacity/general/button_layout" --type string ":minimize,maximize,close"

Shouldn't have to enter a command.

The Fiddler
March 9th, 2010, 11:26 PM
All I can say is I'm very, very disappointed by this change. As someone said in the mailing list, it was handled in a completely amateurish way: what's the rationale? Is there a usability study backing this or is it change just for change's sake?

A concrete use case that: I moved my 60 year old father to Ubuntu 3 years ago. He is a technical person (engineer), long-time Windows user, but far from computer-savvy. Despite my best efforts, he has had a lot of trouble adjusting to the new environment and there's absolutely no way he will be able to adjust to this change. I dread the phone call I invetably will receive once he upgrades to Lucid and I dread trying to explain how to get the "correct" order back.


gconftool-2 --set "/apps/metacity/general/button_layout" --type string ":minimize,maximize,close"

Try explaining that to someone who can barely type 15 words a minute. For more fun, try explaining how to use the computer with the new Lucid design to the same person.

I understand the desire to bring a "hip" and "fresh" design (although I don't think this is the correct way to go about it), but is it really a good idea to break something that has been standard for the whole lifetime of Ubuntu without a really, really good reason?

To those saying the change is easy to revert: going back to minimize/maximize/close breaks the new themes (try it) which means it is not an option. Hopefully this can be fixed in time for Lucid final, but what are the chances other themes (like New Wave) will continue to function correctly after the change?

lwrver
March 9th, 2010, 11:30 PM
The problem isn't it being easy or not -- the problem is most people will assume it's always like that, not even bother searching, and go back to windows. Also, that isn't a proper fix... Minimize should be to the left of maximize, like in karmic. The proper command should be:


gconftool-2 --set "/apps/metacity/general/button_layout" --type string ":minimize,maximize,close"What should I expect to happen when I enter the command string? I executed it and saw no change what so ever. Still on the left side, etc.

forcecore
March 9th, 2010, 11:34 PM
All I can say is I'm very, very disappointed by this change. As someone said in the mailing list, it was handled in a completely amateurish way: what's the rationale? Is there a usability study backing this or is it change just for change's sake?

A concrete use case that: I moved my 60 year old father to Ubuntu 3 years ago. He is a technical person (engineer), long-time Windows user, but far from computer-savvy. Despite my best efforts, he has had a lot of trouble adjusting to the new environment and there's absolutely no way he will be able to adjust to this change. I dread the phone call I invetably will receive once he upgrades to Lucid and I dread trying to explain how to get the "correct" order back.



Try explaining that to someone who can barely type 15 words a minute. For more fun, try explaining how to use the computer with the new Lucid design to the same person.

I understand the desire to bring a "hip" and "fresh" design (although I don't think this is the correct way to go about it), but is it really a good idea to break something that has been standard for the whole lifetime of Ubuntu without a really, really good reason?

To those saying the change is easy to revert: going back to minimize/maximize/close breaks the new themes (try it) which means it is not an option. Hopefully this can be fixed in time for Lucid final, but what are the chances other themes (like New Wave) will continue to function correctly after the change?


Nothing to say...Amen for that, i agree 1000000%

uRock
March 9th, 2010, 11:34 PM
What should I expect to happen when I enter the command string? I executed it and saw no change what so ever. Still on the left side, etc.

"Did you turn it off and back on again?," is what some have said after making the command change.

The Fiddler
March 9th, 2010, 11:34 PM
What should I expect to happen when I enter the command string? I executed it and saw no change what so ever. Still on the left side, etc.

Maybe you need to logout or something.

lwrver
March 9th, 2010, 11:42 PM
I tried turning it off, rebooting, etc. Even executed the commands with and without sudo. No change whatever. I support leaving the command buttons on the right side and in the right order the way most folks are familiar with it. I'm having enough trouble just switching from Kubuntu to Ubuntu with the menu panel on the top instead of the bottom. Sheeesh!

The Fiddler
March 9th, 2010, 11:46 PM
I tried turning it off, rebooting, etc. Even executed the commands with and without sudo. No change whatever. I support leaving the command buttons on the right side and in the right order the way most folks are familiar with it. I'm having enough trouble just switching from Kubuntu to Ubuntu with the menu panel on the top instead of the bottom. Sheeesh!

Someone has created a (rather ugly) GUI app that can change the order of buttons: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/easy-gui-window-button-switcher-for.html

Worth a try.

Toadinator
March 9th, 2010, 11:50 PM
Someone has created a (rather ugly) GUI app that can change the order of buttons: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/easy-gui-window-button-switcher-for.html

Worth a try.

Looks/works nice, but it's still not as useful as Ubuntu Tweak's options for button placement. Problem is, should people wanting to use non-default themes or getting things back to the way they "should" be have to look for this application on non-official sites via Google? I agree with the people saying this change is amateurish.

lwrver
March 10th, 2010, 12:00 AM
The referenced button tweaker script works fine, but I had to edit the script to get the buttons in the right order. If they don't fix things though, it'll probably have to be reapplied after every update.

Madspyman
March 10th, 2010, 12:30 AM
Looks/works nice, but it's still not as useful as Ubuntu Tweak's options for button placement. Problem is, should people wanting to use non-default themes or getting things back to the way they "should" be have to look for this application on non-official sites via Google? I agree with the people saying this change is amateurish.

Exactly people shouldn't have to google tech support just to put there buttons back to where they were before they upgraded.

sixdrift
March 10th, 2010, 12:38 AM
Here's the problem. I have spent the last several years trying convince my Windows-using friends that Ubuntu is NOT a science project.

And then someone goes and tinkers with common look and feel elements that are ubiquitously known by the majority of the world's computer users and provide no explanation for the change.

It feels like a science experiment at that point.

I and most others who take the time to read and post in tech forums (such as this one) fundamentally understand its just a window control and we can change it. The sad fact is the vast majority of computer users are not so inclined. They really don't know its not some magic buried in the operating system. Anything that varies their preset path is upsetting to them.

My guess is that something like this will ultimately hurt Ubuntu's ability to penetrate the desktop market dominated by Windows at this time. And that bothers me. We really need a viable third alternative to the desktop world, one that exceeds Mac penetration significantly. That should not be hard.

For now, I deleted my Lucid alpha partition. I may get the beta. I am hoping the release sets things right, whatever that result may be, with sound design rationale.

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 12:44 AM
Here's the problem. I have spent the last several years trying convince my Windows-using friends that Ubuntu is NOT a science project.

And then someone goes and tinkers with common look and feel elements that are ubiquitously known by the majority of the world's computer users and provide no explanation for the change.

It feels like a science experiment at that point.

This is an LTS release. Why they'd bother messing up everything out of nowhere on a release like this, I have no clue (and it happened before; remember Pulseaudio when we first started using it?).

d5j9
March 10th, 2010, 12:48 AM
Exactly. Especially on an LTS release. It's such a minor thing. Is it worth it? NO!

P.S. Not really sure if it makes any difference, but here (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/23899/) is the brainstorm.


All I can say is I'm very, very disappointed by this change. As someone said in the mailing list, it was handled in a completely amateurish way: what's the rationale? Is there a usability study backing this or is it change just for change's sake?

A concrete use case that: I moved my 60 year old father to Ubuntu 3 years ago. He is a technical person (engineer), long-time Windows user, but far from computer-savvy. Despite my best efforts, he has had a lot of trouble adjusting to the new environment and there's absolutely no way he will be able to adjust to this change. I dread the phone call I invetably will receive once he upgrades to Lucid and I dread trying to explain how to get the "correct" order back.



Try explaining that to someone who can barely type 15 words a minute. For more fun, try explaining how to use the computer with the new Lucid design to the same person.

I understand the desire to bring a "hip" and "fresh" design (although I don't think this is the correct way to go about it), but is it really a good idea to break something that has been standard for the whole lifetime of Ubuntu without a really, really good reason?

To those saying the change is easy to revert: going back to minimize/maximize/close breaks the new themes (try it) which means it is not an option. Hopefully this can be fixed in time for Lucid final, but what are the chances other themes (like New Wave) will continue to function correctly after the change?

jim Kane
March 10th, 2010, 01:27 AM
That's true, if you only deal with one system. If you deal with 10 and the other 9 are on the right it makes it cumbersome.

+1

i have to use WindowsXP at work, I choose to use Ubuntu at home
swooping from one side to the other will drive me NUTS!!!!

cyberkilla
March 10th, 2010, 01:55 AM
+1 Vote for Right Side.

Honestly, did nobody responsible for this consider other themes, or did they think this new one would be so awesome that nobody would ever need to switch?:p

I'm still not bought. It is getting slightly more polished, but it's a bit of an acquired taste.

"But you can change if it you don't like the default..."

Sure, but the *default* should be something that the majority of people are satisfied with.

Madspyman
March 10th, 2010, 02:04 AM
+1 Vote for Right Side.

Honestly, did nobody responsible for this consider other themes, or did they think this new one would be so awesome that nobody would ever need to switch?:p

I'm still not bought. It is getting slightly more polished, but it's a bit of an acquired taste.

"But you can change if it you don't like the default..."

Sure, but the *default* should be something that the majority of people are satisfied with.

Lucid Lynx was designed by Mac users for Mac users.

http://jordanopensource.org/freeplanet/article/new-ubuntu-design-created-apple-mac

Merk42
March 10th, 2010, 02:10 AM
Lucid Lynx was designed by Mac users for Mac users.

http://jordanopensource.org/freeplanet/article/new-ubuntu-design-created-apple-mac

Really? The designers may have been influenced by Mac?? I never noticed (note: check out the icons for .doc, ppt, and xls...)

I said it once before, for Lucid+1... Ubuntu OS X.X Macintosh Mimic

Ozitraveller
March 10th, 2010, 02:14 AM
Should be configurable as part of theme

cyberkilla
March 10th, 2010, 02:20 AM
Lucid Lynx was designed by Mac users for Mac users.

http://jordanopensource.org/freeplanet/article/new-ubuntu-design-created-apple-mac

I dunno if I could draw such a comparison - I _like_ the look of OS X. :p

I like the look of the latest versions of Windows too... In a roundabout way, I suppose I'm saying that GTK and Metacity are at the bottom of the pile of visually stunning interfaces.

It is 2010 and even Windows has figured out how to smooth the corners of their windows (since 2007 and even earlier with the alphas of Vista) - when will GNOME?

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 02:39 AM
I dunno if I could draw such a comparison - I _like_ the look of OS X. :p

I like the look of the latest versions of Windows too... In a roundabout way, I suppose I'm saying that GTK and Metacity are at the bottom of the pile of visually stunning interfaces.

It is 2010 and even Windows has figured out how to smooth the corners of their windows (since 2007 and even earlier with the alphas of Vista) - when will GNOME?

...and this relates to the fact that Ubuntu is trying too hard to emulate the look and feel Mac OS X by changing the button order for no reason (without understanding why), how?

SplitterCode
March 10th, 2010, 04:53 AM
It might have already been mentioned but I'd like to point out that if you want the window buttons back on the right, switching to openbox window manager is always an option. It's better than metacity anyway ;)

Ichtyandr
March 10th, 2010, 05:27 AM
There is an important overall thread of thought running through all the design discussions here. Based on which, regardless of whether I like new look or not, I'd rather be on the old human theme than have this shiny new OSX-lookalike. It is matter of identity more than design now. Nobody wants being second-best, and any copy always is.

phillw
March 10th, 2010, 06:00 AM
<start rant>

# buttons to left me, buttons to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you #

The version I remember is --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8StG4fFWHqg

But, there have been many ....

Going to take a while to remember that Mac --> Ubuntu == buttons in the same area
Mac / Ubuntu --> Win == Buttons on the other side.

We are Borg, we will adapt :p

IMHO (as if any one cares) It is really nice for people to have 10,233 hits on the 10.04 alpha testing area - If only they were on day #1 when we actually started testing the blooming thing and making it work. To me, it seems like people coming in and complaining about the blooming wallpaper and all of a sudden becoming 'interior design experts'.

In the great Scheme of things, Ubuntu will live, or fail, by "Does it work" 10.04 is an extension of the major transition from 9.04 to 9.10 - You all recall the Grub --> Grub2, still ongoing. The new graphics, the new logos .... Fine, if you do not like them, go to 8.04, still going to be supported.

The Devs cannot win, either the masses are complaining "Ubuntu is not cutting edge & stale" or it is "Whoa, we do not like change" ..

Make your blooming minds up. I do not give a monkey about the splash screen that is seen for 15 seconds each boot time. I measure Ubuntu in stability - I'm looking forward to testing out a little system that takes the re-booting hassle out of things like kernel updates.

If I wanted eye-candy I'd pick a Mac, If I wanted to pay for a OS that you never quite know when it is going to get unstable, I'd pick Win.

I want a system that is stable, so I picked Ubuntu. In so far as "Oooh it's different to Win", well, let me just assure all those coming over from Win, it is VERY different, and so are we.

Gee, you'll be complaining about the switch of default search engine next ;)
Or maybe NOT switching to kernel 2.6.33

</end rant>

10.04 ... Yeah, They didn't name it after a carnivore for nothing :D

Phill.

dcstar
March 10th, 2010, 06:06 AM
After just a couple of hours testing 10.04 today, I couldn't stand the buttons on the LHS so I found the Gconf key to change them the the RHS, so now I am happy again.

Pity I had to launch gconf-editor from a terminal as I could not get the System Tools to appear in my Apps menu tree.

ekerazha
March 10th, 2010, 09:21 AM
If the very poor reasoning which drives the choice to move the buttons on the left is the same used to package Ubuntu 10.04, I think it could be better to change distro.

Keyper7
March 10th, 2010, 01:05 PM
Lucid Lynx was designed by Mac users for Mac users.

http://jordanopensource.org/freeplanet/article/new-ubuntu-design-created-apple-mac

By Mac users is something I see no problem with.

For Mac users is a conspiracy theory with no substance.

It's one thing to complain about the OSX similarities, to which I agree to some extent.

But to conclude that the ultimate objective is to please OSX users is a logical step larger than the Grand Canyon.

cyberkilla
March 10th, 2010, 01:35 PM
...and this relates to the fact that Ubuntu is trying too hard to emulate the look and feel Mac OS X by changing the button order for no reason (without understanding why), how?

It makes sense to me. Perhaps there's something wrong with you.

------

EDIT: The fact of the matter is, whether it looks beautiful or it looks ugly-but-functional is immaterial. You have to theme anyway, so you might as well choose to make it look half-decent.

On a related note, the entire issue of rounded borders could be side-stepped by simply not using them! Surely it's possible to make a lovely GTK+Metacity theme that doesn't remind you of its inherent limitations.

Merk42
March 10th, 2010, 03:07 PM
Found this in the other thread about the window buttons...

We have a response: http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281
Except it's not really a response.
While it does mention the questions that were asked, it doesn't explain how the layout is the answer.

sixdrift
March 10th, 2010, 03:07 PM
Make up our blooming mind? We didn't change the UI ;)

I use Ubuntu as my main development computer at work, every day, all day. I also happen to have Ubuntu and Xubuntu installed in dual-boot fashion on most of my home machines. But it comes back to what I do each and every day, all day long. I am writing software professionally on my computer. My job depends on my ability to get my work done efficiently and correctly.

Its not about eye-candy, snazzy interfaces, or the like. Its about stability and usability.

Issues like the pulseaudio snafu was a minor annoyance. I disabled it and went on. Issues like breaking Eclipse with the new GTK was a work stopper. Hence I remained on Jaunty.

No, I am not just complaining idly because someone changed the UI. I am worried I may have to find a new distro to use to do my job.

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 03:15 PM
<anti-live-with-it rant>


IMHO (as if any one cares) It is really nice for people to have 10,233 hits on the 10.04 alpha testing area - If only they were on day #1 when we actually started testing the blooming thing and making it work. To me, it seems like people coming in and complaining about the blooming wallpaper and all of a sudden becoming 'interior design experts'.

You're missing the entire point of this topic. The point is that the button order breaks everyone's habits, and changing them to a different order breaks the new theme (visually; it still works, but it doesn't look how it should). These two posts should sum it up:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8940290&postcount=258
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8939875&postcount=241


In the great Scheme of things, Ubuntu will live, or fail, by "Does it work" 10.04 is an extension of the major transition from 9.04 to 9.10 - You all recall the Grub --> Grub2, still ongoing. The new graphics, the new logos .... Fine, if you do not like them, go to 8.04, still going to be supported.

Again, wrong topic. I think Lucid will be a fine release in terms of features and looks; it looks unique enough to stand on its own and the music store is very convenient. HOWEVER, you still don't understand the fact that this is a change for change's sake. Changing the art for change's sake? That's fine. Changing the functionality after years of having it a different way and supporting the default button order for change's sake? What "experts" decided this, and why? It seems like the "all-Mac design team" wants Ubuntu users to be lost! Look closely at the screenshots of the new themes: Max-Min-Close, AND on the left side. Why? If they're on the left side, that makes them too close to the menu bar, making some people accidentally click one of those buttons instead of a menu (hence why the Global Menu Bar thing on Mac works). If they were on the right side, we'd have less of a problem with that because people wouldn't accidentally click the close button when they meant to hit "view" or "edit".


The Devs cannot win, either the masses are complaining "Ubuntu is not cutting edge & stale" or it is "Whoa, we do not like change" ..

Again, change isn't always a good thing, especially when you change the functionality for no reason. You're basically saying that "all change, thought out or not, is good and if you can't live with it then too bad for you."


Make your blooming minds up. I do not give a monkey about the splash screen that is seen for 15 seconds each boot time. I measure Ubuntu in stability - I'm looking forward to testing out a little system that takes the re-booting hassle out of things like kernel updates.

If I wanted eye-candy I'd pick a Mac, If I wanted to pay for a OS that you never quite know when it is going to get unstable, I'd pick Win.

I want a system that is stable, so I picked Ubuntu. In so far as "Oooh it's different to Win", well, let me just assure all those coming over from Win, it is VERY different, and so are we.

Ubuntu is stable, yes. I love Ubuntu. I hate how they go in and change something that worked for YEARS without saying why, without questioning it, without listening to the STREAMS of complaints against it, and changing without warning. This is the window button placement as well as the button order, the last one being much more important than the first. Don't get me wrong, lots of us like the new artwork change and if we don't like it we can easily change it. Can we easily change the button order to something that makes sense/doesn't visually break themes (and by "easily", I mean that my 41 year old mom that only uses Facebook could get; not people like us)? I don't want to google for some unsupported, unofficial program Ubuntu doesn't even mention to change the button order to how it makes sense to be.


Gee, you'll be complaining about the switch of default search engine next ;)

Again, this is easy to change (my mom can even do it). Some people even like Yahoo/Bing. If Microsoft's paying Ubuntu, I guess that means we've won, right ;)? Anyways, you're trying to hit the nail on the head, but you're hitting the one a bit to the west and 70cm north of the one you're trying to hit and calling it a day. Nobody wins arguments by indirectly talking about the issue and saying everyone that dislikes change in any way, shape or form is [insert insult here].
</anti-live-with-it rant>

I think I've made my point. Sorry if I seem angry, but people that indirectly attack issues and insulting everyone that thinks differently than them make me upset... Discuss.

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 03:18 PM
It makes sense to me. Perhaps there's something wrong with you.

------

EDIT: The fact of the matter is, whether it looks beautiful or it looks ugly-but-functional is immaterial. You have to theme anyway, so you might as well choose to make it look half-decent.

On a related note, the entire issue of rounded borders could be side-stepped by simply not using them! Surely it's possible to make a lovely GTK+Metacity theme that doesn't remind you of its inherent limitations.

We aren't talking about rounded borders, we're talking about the changed button order and why some people assume we're all "hating on the new design". I'm fine with the design (even though it's obvious Ubuntu's having an identity crisis) and I'd use it, but the buttons is a rather large issue that it would be nice if you switched your attention to. Max-Min-Close on the LEFT side doesn't make sense.

cyberkilla
March 10th, 2010, 03:18 PM
Found this in the other thread about the window buttons...

Except it's not really a response.
While it does mention the questions that were asked, it doesn't explain how the layout is the answer.

I'm intrigued by his idea to put min/max on the left and close on the right. Not sure how that would work without removing the app-icon (although it isn't exactly vital, as a right click has the same menu). I think I'll remove it myself and have a trial run:p

EDIT: I don't know about other themes, but with Clearlooks, "menu,minimize,maximize:close" doesn't look half bad. Whether it is remotely beneficial is a different story:P I wish there was a shade button, although I'd probably never use it. Nice to have the option though;)

EDIT 2: "menu:minimize,maximize,spacer,close" puts a gap between the min/max and the close button, but keep them on the right. Just putting it out there...

Keyper7
March 10th, 2010, 03:22 PM
Except it's not really a response.
While it does mention the questions that were asked, it doesn't explain how the layout is the answer.

On that, I agree. The fact that the post concludes by saying that she personally disagrees with the chosen design doesn't help, either.

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 03:25 PM
Found this in the other thread about the window buttons...

Except it's not really a response.
While it does mention the questions that were asked, it doesn't explain how the layout is the answer.

Precisely. If they had the community more involved in the discussion, maybe we would have kept things the way they were. Judging by what he's saying, it was a "compromise" between a bunch of other OSes? Seriously? And without understanding why, too. If Linux Mint isn't affected by the button order change, I'll probably switch to that eventually if Canonical doesn't listen to the community/common sense.

Combining the look of more than one thing is fine, but combining the functionality of more than thing? Who told them that was a good idea, MS? (Hey it's possible, not more than 50% likely though)

Robin Nixon
March 10th, 2010, 03:27 PM
On that, I agree. The fact that the post concludes by saying that she personally disagrees with the chosen design doesn't help, either.

What if. I mean, what if this is all about publicity. Like New Coke - remember? If Lucid Lynx comes out looking like OS X and there's an uproar, well maybe it will change back to Classic Ubuntu, after all the media attention first, of course. Naaah, I'm just too cynical ;)

Kazade
March 10th, 2010, 03:36 PM
What if. I mean, whatIf Lucid Lynx comes out looking like OS X and there's an uproar

You know, I've been thinking about this. If they keep the buttons on the left it could be a PR disaster.. imagine the headlines:

"Canonical fails to innovate with Mac clone"
"Ubuntu has identity crisis, mimics OSX"
etc.

You can get away with coincidence with the tray icons and purple theme, it's suspicious when you combine that with the new MS Office icons, but it's downright plagiarism when you combine it with moving the buttons to the left as well!

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 03:47 PM
There's a new story on WebUpd8 about it I thought I'd mention: http://www.webupd8.org/2010/03/ok-put-metacity-buttons-on-left-but-how.html

Apparently someone's thinking of putting an option in for everyone that doesn't like them being on the left... but what about the button order? That's only solving half of the problem. By the way, there's a note from Mark Shuttleworth at the end in reply to a Launchpad bug on the button order:


The issue is not a bug, it's a difference of opinion on what is the best result. We may change it, or we may hold it.

Mark

Now Mark's infected with the change-for-change idea too? Why would they throw a change out on the day "the UI Freeze" is? Wouldn't it make sense to preview the new look before it's "frozen" so people can actually comment on it? If they don't listen to the community again, Fedora/Mint/Debian, here I come!

Merk42
March 10th, 2010, 04:07 PM
Now Mark's infected with the change-for-change idea too? Why would they throw a change out on the day "the UI Freeze" is? Wouldn't it make sense to preview the new look before it's "frozen" so people can actually comment on it? If they don't listen to the community again, Fedora/Mint/Debian, here I come!

It's just more of the way they're copying OS X.

Now they have smug developers that know better than you.

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 04:12 PM
It's just more of the way they're copying OS X.

Now they have smug developers that know better than you.

Just what every distribution needs *sarcasm*. I remember when people found out that regular users (non-admin) could get access to install programs on Fedora 12. I don't know if that was fixed yet, but it was all because the developers "knew better than us". What system administrator would want to install an OS its users could use for anything they wanted?

By the way: I'm installing Linux Mint 8 on a virtual machine, and it already seems better than Ubuntu! No forced integration with certain programs, only one bar, the mintMenu (their menu applet) works fantastic, and it's all Ubuntu-compatible! I'm sold :D!

scouser73
March 10th, 2010, 04:12 PM
In essence, the location of the windows buttons aren't that great a problem as it can easily be rectified, I'd like to think that it's happened like this because of the overhaul in rebranding Ubuntu.

There are two simple ways to fix the location of the windows buttons, one using Gconf-editor and the other using Ubuntu Tweak.

As the old saying goes; A change is as good as a rest.

Uncle Spellbinder
March 10th, 2010, 04:25 PM
The the combination of the new purple oriented color scheme and the button placement is an all-to-obvious, poor imitation of OSX. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no reasoning behind this change whatsoever. No statement as to why it was done. The "breaking habits" statement is laughable. Change for the sake of change is never a good idea.

yoasif
March 10th, 2010, 04:44 PM
the choice there is a design decision, it's worth noting though that the order should apply only to light themes, it doesn't now but the issue will be fixed for lucid, the title not being centered is also a different issue than the order and has a different bug.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 04:44 PM
In essence, the location of the windows buttons aren't that great a problem as it can easily be rectified, I'd like to think that it's happened like this because of the overhaul in rebranding Ubuntu.

There are two simple ways to fix the location of the windows buttons, one using Gconf-editor and the other using Ubuntu Tweak.

As the old saying goes; A change is as good as a rest.

If you read through the 30+ pages this topic is spanning (yeah, sorry about that), you'd see that people like my mother, my siblings, and almost everyone that can use a mouse don't know and don't want to learn how to do these kinds of things. "Easy" to you and me is a totally different thing when we're talking about people that only use Webkinz, Facebook, and Linerider.

howefield
March 10th, 2010, 04:49 PM
you'd see that people like my mother, my siblings, and almost everyone that can use a mouse don't know and don't want to learn how to do these kinds of things. "Easy" to you and me is a totally different thing when we're talking about people that only use Webkinz, Facebook, and Linerider.

I'm not so sure about that, people with such a weak grasp of the computer could arguably adapt just as easily as "you and me".

It is the masses in the middle that have the problems.

Robin Nixon
March 10th, 2010, 05:16 PM
I'm intrigued by his idea to put min/max on the left and close on the right. Not sure how that would work without removing the app-icon (although it isn't exactly vital

Actually it works quite well...

Alt-F2 -> gconf-editor -> apps -> metacity -> general -> button_layout

minimize,maximize:close
or if you want the menu button too:

menu,minimize,maximize:close
Hmmm.... It's growing on me... (except the rounded edges look wrong in Ambiance and Radiance)

23meg
March 10th, 2010, 05:19 PM
The button order thing is temporary; regardless of whether the default theme has the buttons on the left or right at release time, other themes will not have a messed up button order (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/39). The fact that they do now is a temporary bug.

Thus, "it breaks every other Metacity theme" is not a valid argument against the current design.

Robin Nixon
March 10th, 2010, 05:23 PM
The button order thing is temporary; regardless of whether the default theme has the buttons on the left or right at release time, other themes will not have a messed up button order (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/39). The fact that they do now is a temporary bug.

Thus, "it breaks every other Metacity theme" is not a valid argument against the current design.

From that link:

"The order should apply only to light themes, it doesn't now but the issue will be fixed for lucid"

In that case, it's conversation over for me, as this is now not really an issue.

Merk42
March 10th, 2010, 05:26 PM
The button order thing is temporary; regardless of whether the default theme has the buttons on the left or right at release time, other themes will not have a messed up button order (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/39). The fact that they do now is a temporary bug.

Thus, "it breaks every other Metacity theme" is not a valid argument against the current design.

Well that's one down

Of course there is still:
relearning muscle memory
increased likelihood of accidental clicking

Madspyman
March 10th, 2010, 05:54 PM
From that link:

"The order should apply only to light themes, it doesn't now but the issue will be fixed for lucid"

In that case, it's conversation over for me, as this is now not really an issue.

Agreed problem solved.

uRock
March 10th, 2010, 05:56 PM
The button order thing is temporary; regardless of whether the default theme has the buttons on the left or right at release time, other themes will not have a messed up button order (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/39). The fact that they do now is a temporary bug.

Thus, "it breaks every other Metacity theme" is not a valid argument against the current design.

I am glad to hear this. Thanks for sharing. Of course I have already replaced Lucid with Karmic, but I will put it back when the bug is fixed.

Thanx,
Ronnie

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 06:16 PM
The button order thing is temporary; regardless of whether the default theme has the buttons on the left or right at release time, other themes will not have a messed up button order (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/39). The fact that they do now is a temporary bug.

Thus, "it breaks every other Metacity theme" is not a valid argument against the current design.

Yay, a response! Thanks so much for confirming this.

nomnex
March 10th, 2010, 06:43 PM
I hate mac & mac users & mac marketing bragging about conceptual bull...t for the mindless mass

these buttons are plain ugly + on the wrong side of the window
underscore | square | cross = good usability

what's the need to turn a tool (GNOME) into a flashy pile of s... anyway? That's a good premise of GNOME-SHELL (v.3)

OpenSUSE KDE = is already a Windoze clone
Ubuntu = is becoming a Mac clone

I am a Mac | I am a PC | I am a clown (clone)...

gsmanners
March 10th, 2010, 07:40 PM
Well, there's a fun thread (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/).

In all that wailing and teeth-gnashing, not once did I see anyone even propose the obvious solution: to make the button order configurable. I guess this just shows how dead-set people are in how Gnome is already designed.

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 07:42 PM
Well, there's a fun thread (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/).

In all that wailing and teeth-gnashing, not once did I see anyone even propose the obvious solution: to make the button order configurable. I guess this just shows how dead-set people are in how Gnome is already designed.

Google Chrome for linux as well as non-metacity applications like Songbird and such assume the default button order/location, making them look extremely out of place.

Merk42
March 10th, 2010, 08:13 PM
Well, there's a fun thread (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/).

In all that wailing and teeth-gnashing, not once did I see anyone even propose the obvious solution: to make the button order configurable. I guess this just shows how dead-set people are in how Gnome is already designed.
Google Chrome for linux as well as non-metacity applications like Songbird and such assume the default button order/location, making them look extremely out of place.

Plus the fact that as it currently stands, reordering the buttons looks ugly due to the trough.

shafin
March 10th, 2010, 08:20 PM
Finally someone from the UX team has spoken (http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281).
And her personal opinion is quite interesting

Personally, I would have the max and min on the left and close on the right.

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 08:26 PM
Finally someone from the UX team has spoken (http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281).
And her personal opinion is quite interesting

Seen it; it was mentioned before. That, and that doesn't fix the problem that it would break some themes and non-metacity apps like Songbird/Chrome would stand out more than usual (wrong button location/order).

castrojo
March 10th, 2010, 08:40 PM
Seen it; it was mentioned before. That, and that doesn't fix the problem that it would break some themes and non-metacity apps like Songbird/Chrome would stand out more than usual (wrong button location/order).

Those two apps put the widgets on the left in OSX, no reason they couldn't do the same on Linux.

23meg
March 10th, 2010, 08:51 PM
Well, there's a fun thread (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/).

In all that wailing and teeth-gnashing, not once did I see anyone even propose the obvious solution: to make the button order configurable. I guess this just shows how dead-set people are in how Gnome is already designed.

I too am surprised, but positively.

If the default is unsatisfactory as a default, configurability will not lessen the impact of that. Making things configurable to avoid having to make a real decision does not bail you out of the responsibility to deliver working defaults. It's the most obvious design cop-out.

Keyper7
March 10th, 2010, 08:54 PM
If the default is unsatisfactory as a default, configurability will not lessen the impact of that. Making things configurable to avoid having to make a real decision does not bail you out of the responsibility to deliver working defaults. It's the most obvious design cop-out.

Or, to put it short, Linux is not about choice (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html). :)

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 09:03 PM
Those two apps put the widgets on the left in OSX, no reason they couldn't do the same on Linux.

So... they'd have to release an "Ubuntu only" version of their applications in addition to supporting the other distributions? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem fair to everyone else. Why can't we keep things how they make sense being, how we've had them for years?

magneze
March 10th, 2010, 09:10 PM
Finally someone from the UX team has spoken (http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281).
And her personal opinion is quite interestingWhat amazes and disappoints about that is that this change has been made on personal opinion with no usability testing.:???:

castrojo
March 10th, 2010, 09:11 PM
So... they'd have to release an "Ubuntu only" version of their applications in addition to supporting the other distributions?

Of course not, you can likely do it in a client side decoration or something.

magneze
March 10th, 2010, 09:12 PM
So... they'd have to release an "Ubuntu only" version of their applications in addition to supporting the other distributions? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem fair to everyone else. Why can't we keep things how they make sense being, how we've had them for years?They probably wouldn't bother. No other distribution has made this change.

I afraid that this is the sort of arbitrary change that could really dent Ubuntu as a desktop OS.

louis--taylor
March 10th, 2010, 09:25 PM
I like no window decorations at all!
It creates a minimalist sort of effect with no clutter.
It does not matter where they go to me, because I remove them at every fresh install.

keep-on-smiling
March 10th, 2010, 09:38 PM
as an idea for the default desktop it is really strange - but at least it is easy enough to fix:


gconf-editor

apps -> metacity -> general

locate the "button_layout option and move the colon to the left side as below:

:minimize,maximize,close

Please note I have re-arranged the buttons too, as I kept hitting the minimise when I wanted maximise etc... I did this by swapping the minimize and maximize words around, keeping the commas in place.

Cheers

Madspyman
March 10th, 2010, 09:44 PM
What amazes and disappoints about that is that this change has been made on personal opinion with no usability testing.:???:

I feel everyone keeps ignoring this issue, there's still hasn't been an official reason presented as to why the default theme needs to have the buttons on the left.

SushiR
March 10th, 2010, 09:50 PM
I really dislike the new button order - whether left or right. Maybe for lefthanders it's the right choice, I don't know. They should make it easy to set up to own needs (as KDE did).

Toadinator
March 10th, 2010, 10:10 PM
This change, whether or not it's being re-thought, made me rather upset. In being upset, I mentioned once or twice that I'd be probably switching to another distribution sooner or later like Fedora or Linux Mint. After trying Mint in VirtualBox, I've decided that I'm switching to it for good (probably over spring break). I not only get compatibility with my old Ubuntu setup, but it's MUCH more community-oriented, so crazy changes like this don't happen ;). The mintMenu panel applet works wonderfully, and Ubuntu would be doing good by adopting it (saves space and time, more configurable too :D). mintInstall, the Software Center replacement, isn't as user-friendly but it works faster and better in general. The desktop layout's similar to Windows by default (helping Windows converts), it doesn't run as many things as Ubuntu on startup (from what I can tell), the artwork's more original than Ubuntu, it has a little "first start" window, it comes with backup and compiz configuration programs, and more!™

I think everyone using Ubuntu should at least try this out once (liveCD/USB, virtualbox, something). It really is that much better.

Anyways, back to complaining about the button placement :P!

adancau
March 10th, 2010, 10:45 PM
I too am going to head for Mint or Fedora if Ubuntu doesn't listen to its users anymore. Except for the inherent usability problems and forcing an unnecessary, unfriendly change, there's the issue of ignoring something along the lines of 75-80% (at least according to the poll) of the Ubuntu community. I wouldn't be surprised for such a move to be pulled by Apple, but from a community driven Linux distro?? (Yeah, the irony's there, the new interface pretty much looks like a bad Mac OSX copy...)

linusr
March 10th, 2010, 10:46 PM
after playing around changing windows button orders, right/left, this is what I felt

for unmaximized windows like nautilus, windows buttons on left is easier to use
for maximized windows ike firefox, window buttons on right is much easier.. buttons juz below 'Main Menu' doesn't feels good

and realized I hardly use the minimize button!!!

forcecore
March 10th, 2010, 11:08 PM
i do not understand do they really plan to make it final withou easy change option??? how Shuttleworth allows that???

DEVELOPERS: Integrate this at least to menu out of box, it is not hard to do.......
http://eftimie.ro/store/window_controls.py

VMC
March 10th, 2010, 11:18 PM
Or, to put it short, Linux is not about choice (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html). :)

Great read! I think your link slipped by unnoticed.

23meg
March 10th, 2010, 11:42 PM
Or, to put it short, Linux is not about choice (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html). :)

Right (http://mystilleef.blogspot.com/2007/01/human-preferences-in-software-design.html) on (http://mystilleef.blogspot.com/2005/12/just-add-option-to-turn-it-off-or-on.html).

Toadinator
March 11th, 2010, 01:49 AM
Right (http://mystilleef.blogspot.com/2007/01/human-preferences-in-software-design.html) on (http://mystilleef.blogspot.com/2005/12/just-add-option-to-turn-it-off-or-on.html).

Exactly the reason I don't use KDE; it's like a "do-it-yourself" desktop. Simply adding options to disable/enable things all the time is pretty stupid, but things like the window button location, which is pretty easy to do, is an exception (because of usability/habit concerns).

However, to bring up a somewhat related point, does that mean we should remove features like this? Like how the Nautilus devs are planning to remove the ability to use a split pane or how they moved/wanted to move the tabs to the bottom. What are the reasons behind these changes? A split pane is very useful to certain people, so I don't see a reason to remove it. And what about the tabs on the bottom? That's breaking consistency IIRC. Most people are used to tabs on the top so they should know what to do. Forcing them to be on the bottom seems rather ignorant if you ask me.

Or how about the "removing the option to have icons in menus" debate?

ankspo71
March 11th, 2010, 01:58 AM
And what about the tabs on the bottom? That's breaking consistency IIRC. Most people are used to tabs on the top so they should know what to do. Forcing them to be on the bottom seems rather ignorant if you ask me.


As of right now, Lucid Aplha 3 fully updated has nautilus tabs on top. They must have changed it when I wasn't looking :D
nautilus 2.29.92 (1:2.29.92-0ubuntu1)

Madspyman
March 11th, 2010, 02:04 AM
Anybody seen this yet?

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/16-things-that-could-be-improved-in.html

Button placement is the first thing on the list.

Merk42
March 11th, 2010, 02:11 AM
Anybody seen this yet?

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/16-things-that-could-be-improved-in.html

Button placement is the first thing on the list.

Add that to the other list of blogs talking about the buttons, most of which mentioned in that blog.

The writer of that blog is just an Ubuntu user and Forum member like the rest of us. As far as I know he is neither a developer nor someone with a lot of cash to donate so it unfortunately won't have any affect as to how quickly, if at all, those bugs get fixed.

gsmanners
March 11th, 2010, 02:17 AM
I too am surprised, but positively.

If the default is unsatisfactory as a default, configurability will not lessen the impact of that. Making things configurable to avoid having to make a real decision does not bail you out of the responsibility to deliver working defaults. It's the most obvious design cop-out.

That's only about half the truth. If what we were talking about was *fixing* a problem, then I would agree with you. To my mind, this is about personal preference. This is about aesthetics, really. Given that, the obvious solution is to make it optional.

23meg
March 11th, 2010, 02:28 AM
That's only about half the truth. If what we were talking about was *fixing* a problem, then I would agree with you. To my mind, this is about personal preference. This is about aesthetics, really. Given that, the obvious solution is to make it optional.

Where window buttons are placed on the title bar is a matter of no less than accessibility, ergonomics, workflow and cognition; in short, usability. It's not about aesthetics alone, and it's not entirely subjective. If there's a problem with it in a substantial number of use scenarios, that affects the usability of the system as a whole.

In discussions of defaults, personal preferences are irrelevant. There will be exactly one default in any case, and an insurmountably large number of combinations of personal preferences in any case, for a large number of which that default will be unsuited in any case. The trick is to make that one default work in as many scenarios as possible, and make it trivial to change in the rest.

And contrary to popular belief, it's no easy trick.

Ibidem
March 11th, 2010, 02:36 AM
I prefer them on the right.
I have always used "buttons on the right" systems, with the exception of OpenGEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gem1.png), and plan to stick with buttons on the right. As far as configurability goes, I like the classic *nix approach: plain-text .config that has fully intelligible options- (from ~/.icewm/preferences)


# Show network status on task bar (Linux only)
TaskBarShowNetStatus=1 # 0/1
# Show APM/ACPI/Battery/Power status monitor on task bar
TaskBarShowAPMStatus=1 # 0/1


# Show APM status on task bar in time-format
TaskBarShowAPMTime=1 # 0/1

#Time format-Use hours:min AM/PM
TimeFormat="%I:%M %P"
ConfirmLogout=0
NetworkStatusDevice="eth0 wlan0"
EdgeSwitch=0
WorkspaceNames="1", "2", "3", "4

That beats the "who cares what the rest think, we'll do it this one way" approach, the GNOME approach (make the configuration files unreadable and pick whether or not to expose the features), as well as the "let everyone pick everything right up front" approach (KDE).
There are reasons to allow people to change things.
If every detail is written in stone, where is the "freedom" that FOSS is named for?
Why would we need to do something like recompile Gnome if we want to change where the buttons are, just because someone decided they would rather have it look like Mac than Windows? (NOTE: Hyperbole!)
I venture to say that there are valid reasons to do things differently (just look at the natural world), and there are certain amounts of work that are sensible for different changes.
If a noticeable change is reasonable, the level of work required to change should be reasonable.
That means, very little "if you want it different, build it yourself" is appropriate for a major software project. The key question for Gnome should be, "Is it reasonable and likely that someone will do things differently?"
Ibidem

Toadinator
March 11th, 2010, 02:40 AM
I venture to say that there are valid reasons to do things differently (just look at the natural world), and there are certain amounts of work that are sensible for different changes.
If a noticeable change is reasonable, the level of work required to change should be reasonable.
That means, very little "if you want it different, build it yourself" is appropriate for a major software project. The key question for Gnome should be, "Is it reasonable and likely that someone will do things differently?"
Ibidem

+1 Agreed. Insightful, and basically what I just said :P.

ubudog
March 11th, 2010, 02:46 AM
I voted right because I just like it that way, but I really don't mind. The light theme looks pretty cool actually.

Ibidem
March 11th, 2010, 03:04 AM
@Toadinator:
By "do things differently," I meant to say "allow people to do things differently [from the default]".
(Poor wording, I guess)
The point was that allowing configuration is not infallibly a sign of a bad designer, as some of the posts linked to on the last page seemed to be saying.

Toadinator
March 11th, 2010, 03:15 AM
@Toadinator:
By "do things differently," I meant to say "allow people to do things differently [from the default]".
(Poor wording, I guess)
The point was that allowing configuration is not infallibly a sign of a bad designer, as some of the posts linked to on the last page seemed to be saying.

Yeah, I figured that. Doesn't make much of a difference in what you said anyways. I agree still :).

SushiR
March 11th, 2010, 05:29 AM
Anybody seen this yet?

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/16-things-that-could-be-improved-in.html

Button placement is the first thing on the list.

That's exactly what's annoying me most.

sv87411
March 11th, 2010, 12:46 PM
<sigh>...

37 pages of (mostly) negative comments about a small (but significant) change in a new version of Ubuntu.

A 76% majority (albeit in a small sample of voters) in favour of no change.

Microsoft observers must be laughing their little MSocks off at how amateurish and naive the Ubuntu devs have been in making this change. No usability testing results to justify the change and little or no response to the negative feedback.

It all smacks of arrogance/ignorance on the part of the Ubuntu devs. People are already looking at moving to Fedora or Mint (which won't survive if Ubuntu doesn't). The devs need to ask themselves why people are prepared to take such steps just because some buttons have moved. The devs also need to wake up and realise that Ubuntu is now in the big league and no longer a hobby project where they get to impose their own personal fads and fancies they have to listen to their user community, especially when it comes to basic usability.

I know this sounds overly dramatic, but once the rot sets in it'll be very difficult to stop its spread and we could be seeing a new Linux flavour at the top of the Distrowatch list sooner than anyone thinks.

Kazade
March 11th, 2010, 01:05 PM
I know this sounds overly dramatic, but once the rot sets in it'll be very difficult to stop its spread and we could be seeing a new Linux flavour at the top of the Distrowatch list sooner than anyone thinks.

It doesn't sound overly dramatic. Until this point Ubuntu has always had a focus, to be "human" and to fix bug #1. Yes it was brown, but it had an identity.

This change just gives the impression that Ubuntu is lost. It's lost its identity overnight by trying to mimic OSX, badly. That's the real issue with this, if 10.04 is release with the buttons on the left, along with the numerous other OSX resembling features then I don't want to read the news reports on the release date, because no matter how well we've done with the rest of the system Ubuntu just went from "Linux for human beings" to "OSX for people who can't afford a Mac".

Here's what I think should happen:

1. A statement should be released saying "Moving the buttons was an experiment, it failed, we'll be going with the right hand side"
2. Move the buttons
3. Replace the office icons with those using the new Ubuntu font that was submitted to ubuntu-art the other day.
4. Stop duplicating OSX!

cyberkilla
March 11th, 2010, 01:12 PM
<sigh>...

37 pages of (mostly) negative comments about a small (but significant) change in a new version of Ubuntu.

A 76% majority (albeit in a small sample of voters) in favour of no change.

Microsoft observers must be laughing their little MSocks off at how amateurish and naive the Ubuntu devs have been in making this change. No usability testing results to justify the change and little or no response to the negative feedback.

It all smacks of arrogance/ignorance on the part of the Ubuntu devs. People are already looking at moving to Fedora or Mint (which won't survive if Ubuntu doesn't). The devs need to ask themselves why people are prepared to take such steps just because some buttons have moved. The devs also need to wake up and realise that Ubuntu is now in the big league and no longer a hobby project where they get to impose their own personal fads and fancies they have to listen to their user community, especially when it comes to basic usability.

I know this sounds overly dramatic, but once the rot sets in it'll be very difficult to stop its spread and we could be seeing a new Linux flavour at the top of the Distrowatch list sooner than anyone thinks.

It's a similar mentality to that which gave us NotifyOSD (with absolutely no configuration options whatsoever) and other such c***. Innovation implemented in the worst fashion.

jfrorie
March 11th, 2010, 01:45 PM
People are already looking at moving to Fedora or Mint (which won't survive if Ubuntu doesn't).

And this is not a bad thing, at least temporarily. The problem I see is that Ubuntu, with respect to the UX, is not performing usability studies. They've made a number of bad decisions based on their gut and no one is will to call them on it.

I've been a huge Ubuntu advocate since drake, but I'm afraid action needs to be taken. If they don't start involving the community in their decision process, we need to respond by shifting to a different distro. In a free market you vote with your pocket book. In the free software world, you just switch distros.

Once enough users decide en masse to change, they will hear this and respond appropriately. I can survive in Debian or Mint for a release cycle until the problems get sorted out, but others need to make a similar decision.

I don't want to hurt Ubuntu, but I think this change will have drastic effects. Dissent by a few is sometimes necessary to ensure the health of the whole.

forcecore
March 11th, 2010, 01:52 PM
People from London please go to 27th floor of Millbank Tower near Westminster.

gsmanners
March 11th, 2010, 01:55 PM
Where window buttons are placed on the title bar is a matter of no less than accessibility, ergonomics, workflow and cognition; in short, usability. It's not about aesthetics alone, and it's not entirely subjective. If there's a problem with it in a substantial number of use scenarios, that affects the usability of the system as a whole.

In discussions of defaults, personal preferences are irrelevant. There will be exactly one default in any case, and an insurmountably large number of combinations of personal preferences in any case, for a large number of which that default will be unsuited in any case. The trick is to make that one default work in as many scenarios as possible, and make it trivial to change in the rest.

And contrary to popular belief, it's no easy trick.

I concede this point, and I have to admit that the right side seems like the better one for reasons other than familiarity and muscle memory etc. Even if the titlebar were moved to the right side of the window and the title drawn vertically, it would still be my inclination to put the buttons in the upper right.

Nevertheless, it's still a fairly trivial issue. This still doesn't approach the controversy of using Yahoo! by default in Firefox, nor does this come anywhere near the level of stunning ignorance the developers showed in removing the GIMP by default.

Keyper7
March 11th, 2010, 01:58 PM
If every detail is written in stone, where is the "freedom" that FOSS is named for?

In the distribution license. Something that doesn't have, and never had, anything to do with configuration options.

Keyper7
March 11th, 2010, 02:02 PM
Nevertheless, it's still a fairly trivial issue. This still doesn't approach the controversy of using Yahoo! by default in Firefox, nor does this come anywhere near the level of stunning ignorance the developers showed in removing the GIMP by default.

In my opinion, it's the worse of all three issues. I don't personally care for any of those three changes, but I do care about transparency. The arguments for removing GIMP weren't well received by everyone, but they made a lot of sense to me. The arguments for changing to Yahoo! were weak and questionable (money), but existed. As for the window buttons, I have yet to see an official stance. Frankly, I don't care if I agree with it or not, I just want it to exist.

cpmman
March 11th, 2010, 02:05 PM
Am I alone in removing those difficult-to-see things and preferring to use rightclick(anywhere on the title bar)/select to min/max/close/(or even wobble) my open window?

boublik
March 11th, 2010, 02:14 PM
This is like having the blinkers and the wipers controls switched around in your car, one can get used but it's a brain torture to say the least. Ubuntu shouldn't be distiguished for something that can be just bloody awkward. Remember that 'life was much easier when apple and blackburry were just fruits' ;)

kerry_s
March 11th, 2010, 02:15 PM
Am I alone in removing those difficult-to-see things and preferring to use rightclick(anywhere on the title bar)/select to min/max/close/(or even wobble) my open window?

we don't need no stinkin buttons. :lolflag:

sv87411
March 11th, 2010, 02:34 PM
Am I alone in removing those difficult-to-see things and preferring to use rightclick(anywhere on the title bar)/select to min/max/close/(or even wobble) my open window?

No, I think it must be fair to say you are not alone. But equally it's fair to say you're in the minority.

You move the mouse to the title bar, right click, move the mouse to the menu item you want and then left click - two moves, two clicks.

I move the mouse to the top right of the title bar, to one of three icons and click once - one move, one click.

Your preference is less efficient than mine with regard to moves and clicks, but I respect that it works for you, you've become used to it and your are happy with it.

I suspect because the majority of voters in this forum have voted against the change then they use the one move, one click approach rather than yours - otherwise the "I don't mind" results would be larger.

As we are discussing the location of the buttons used in the one move, one click scenario it is this that is relevant to this discussion and not any other options that people might choose to use such as right click on title bar or using other window managers.

If Ubuntu were to change the "move to anywhere in title bar, right click, select menu item, left click" functionality I think you'd probably be complaining right now too.

:)

Merk42
March 11th, 2010, 02:42 PM
Here's what I think should happen:

1. A statement should be released saying "Moving the buttons was an experiment, it failed, we'll be going with the right hand side"
2. Move the buttons
3. Replace the office icons with those using the new Ubuntu font that was submitted to ubuntu-art the other day.
4. Stop duplicating OSX!

Well, thank you.
I just made a bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/humanity-icon-theme/+bug/537358) for that today (I should have sooner)

Toadinator
March 11th, 2010, 03:06 PM
we don't need no stinkin buttons. :lolflag:

=D> *applause*

Toadinator
March 11th, 2010, 03:11 PM
If Ubuntu were to change the "move to anywhere in title bar, right click, select menu item, left click" functionality I think you'd probably be complaining right now too.

:)

Actually, I just found this out myself a couple months ago: you can just right-click, hold it down, move your mouse to the item you want, and let go. Lets your mouse live one click longer :D!

sv87411
March 11th, 2010, 03:36 PM
Actually, I just found this out myself a couple months ago: you can just right-click, hold it down, move your mouse to the item you want, and let go. Lets your mouse live one click longer :D!

Noted. I did not know this. I have learnt something.

I still won't use it though. It's also still less efficient to the tune of one move...

And again, it's not really relevent to the topic of this discussion.


;)

cement_head
March 11th, 2010, 04:57 PM
Hello,

The movement of the buttons is confusing. Also the order is wrong.

PLEASE MOVE THEM BACK.

- CH :KS

d5j9
March 11th, 2010, 07:20 PM
It doesn't sound overly dramatic. Until this point Ubuntu has always had a focus, to be "human" and to fix bug #1. Yes it was brown, but it had an identity.

This change just gives the impression that Ubuntu is lost. It's lost its identity overnight by trying to mimic OSX, badly. That's the real issue with this, if 10.04 is release with the buttons on the left, along with the numerous other OSX resembling features then I don't want to read the news reports on the release date, because no matter how well we've done with the rest of the system Ubuntu just went from "Linux for human beings" to "OSX for people who can't afford a Mac".


I agree completely.

LucAndrea
March 11th, 2010, 09:27 PM
Ubuntu lost its identity. Please move those icons back. :(

woodnymph
March 11th, 2010, 10:02 PM
i found this from IRC is you want to change the window buttons back to the right ..

http://sites.google.com/site/alucidfs/how-i-do/move-buttons-to-right-side

aysiu
March 11th, 2010, 10:08 PM
I don't mind right or left, as long as the close button is on the outside.

Right now in Lucid, the group of buttons is on the left but the close button itself is still on the right side of the group. Annoying.

LucAndrea
March 11th, 2010, 10:41 PM
I think the close button should be the rightmost part of the window.
The other two buttons could stay in the left side.

gexi
March 11th, 2010, 10:48 PM
i really like the new button layout. :P
it took me two days to get there though ... ;)

(just felt like i needed to say this, after all the negative comments about it ... )

Toadinator
March 11th, 2010, 10:59 PM
I think the close button should be the rightmost part of the window.
The other two buttons could stay in the left side.


i really like the new button layout. :P
it took me two days to get there though ... ;)

(just felt like i needed to say this, after all the negative comments about it ... )

The point isn't whether or not people like it or can get used to it, the main point is that it breaks some themes (not all but quite a few), it isn't easy to change back (your definition of easy is different from my mom's), and that applications that don't use Metacity by default like Chrome or Songbird look very out of place.

gexi
March 11th, 2010, 11:07 PM
The point isn't whether or not people like it or can get used to it, the main point is that it breaks some themes (not all but quite a few), it isn't easy to change back (your definition of easy is different from my mom's), and that applications that don't use Metacity by default like Chrome or Songbird look very out of place.

no, it will not break themes in the future. this issue has already been filed as a bug and will be resolved soon. at least that's what one of the developers said.

second issue could also be resolved by the third party developers ... i guess...

the third point (not mentioned by you, but all in all ... ) was the osx-similarity thing ... but c'mon! ;)

Didius Falco
March 11th, 2010, 11:31 PM
I don't mind where they put them, as long as I can change them back if I want to. The gconf-editor route is fine for the geekier folks like me, but there really needs to be a one-stop-shopping app to make all these kinds of changes.

What I fear is that people like my sister, who I've been nudging towards Ubuntu for almost a year (which is exactly how long I've been using Ubuntu...) will load Ubuntu, see the buttons on the "wrong" side of the screen, ask me how to change it and then run screaming back to Windows because she ain't going to feel comfortable digging around under the hood.

Still, it's definitely more user friendly than the recent Nautilus decision (since rescinded) to move the tabs from the top to the bottom.

I did some digging around on that and the devs basically said, "We decide the defaults, and we aren't providing a way to change it. If someone else wants to put together a way to do it, fine, but this is our chosen UI, and the default is all we are offering."

That inspired me to dig up the git and diff that made that change, download the source code and tools to compile it, learn how to make the change needed, recompile and install it.

That's fine for someone like me, that enjoys getting under the "hood" of pc software and hardware, though I found the refusal to offer an easy way to choose the tab position indefensible.

They've since changed it back, and now those who actually preferred the tabs at the bottom are in the same position I and others who like them at the top were.

Think of all the frustration, loss of goodwill and time that could be saved had they simply made it an easily changed user-configurable option.

I think a big part of the problem is that, once you hit a certain level of knowledge (definitely a much higher level than I'm at), it gets really hard to remember being a new user and how what seems blindingly obvious to you doesn't even occur to a new user.

Ubuntu already does a good job at teaching new users, with this forum, local user groups, etc.

What needs to be looked at now is what Ubuntu can learn from new users...

Toadinator
March 11th, 2010, 11:35 PM
no, it will not break themes in the future. this issue has already been filed as a bug and will be resolved soon. at least that's what one of the developers said.

I don't mean themes that are included; I mean themes that assume the default and standardized button order, many of which aren't included by default in Ubuntu. Why should every other theme developer release "ubuntu-compatible" themes just because we're deciding to stray from the norm for little-to-no reason?

cdEWoozy
March 11th, 2010, 11:43 PM
I voted "right", but after having used the default left-side buttons for a bit I must say it's quite comfortable. Having the close-button above the menu bar is a bit dangerous however.

23meg
March 12th, 2010, 12:06 AM
I don't mean themes that are included; I mean themes that assume the default and standardized button order, many of which aren't included by default in Ubuntu. Why should every other theme developer release "ubuntu-compatible" themes just because we're deciding to stray from the norm for little-to-no reason?

Why do you assume that the fix is going to cover the themes shipped by default? That's not going to be the case; the intention is that the button order will only apply to the new themes, Radiance and Ambiance. That it does not right now is considered a bug, which will be resolved for the final release.

gexi
March 12th, 2010, 12:09 AM
I don't mean themes that are included; I mean themes that assume the default and standardized button order, many of which aren't included by default in Ubuntu. Why should every other theme developer release "ubuntu-compatible" themes just because we're deciding to stray from the norm for little-to-no reason?

well the way i understood it, they simply wanted to make the appearance-tool set the gconf configuration to this standardized order if nothing else is specified. not a big deal i'd think ....

this way, there's no need to make ubuntu-compatible themes. almost every other theme will just have the old button order min max close to the right ...

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 12:19 AM
I voted "right", but after having used the default left-side buttons for a bit I must say it's quite comfortable. Having the close-button above the menu bar is a bit dangerous however.

You may find it comfortable and in isolation I am sure you, and for that matter I, may come to get used to it... if only I were solely an Ubuntu user. Alas I work for a company that only offers me a Windows XP desktop and after using that for 8 or 9 hours a day moving to top right and knowing that the buttons go minimise, maximise, close, I have no desire to come home, fire up my Ubuntu laptop and force my brain to adjust to move to top left, maximise, minimise, close.

While I'm no fan of Microsoft I have experienced their windows based systems since Windows 2.1x and while the close button hasn't always been there (introduced in Windows 95), the minimise and maximise have always, always been there, top right hand corner, every time.

This is one area where Ubuntu needs to maintain the layout, mirror Windows and not change to an OSXy layout just for the sake of change and the personal preference of a few devs who use Macs.

If you want me to use Ubuntu, every day, make it easy to use it alongside what I use at work. Because I'll wager most people at work use an MS Windows OS and are used to the buttons top right and used to minimise, maximise, close. So let's keep them there and keep them in that order.

EDIT: Bit ranty, sorry, wasn't meant to be, just passionate.

aysiu
March 12th, 2010, 12:23 AM
This is one area where Ubuntu needs to maintain the layout, mirror Windows and not change to an OSXy layout just for the sake of change and the personal preference of a few devs who use Macs. It wouldn't work for the devs who use Macs, anyway. Macs have the close button on the far left, not jammed in the middle, to the right of the other two buttons, as it is in Lucid alpha.

LucAndrea
March 12th, 2010, 12:24 AM
We do not want buttons on the left side, especially if there isn't a nice graphical way to change their position.

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 12:31 AM
It wouldn't work for the devs who use Macs, anyway. Macs have the close button on the far left, not jammed in the middle, to the right of the other two buttons, as it is in Lucid alpha.

OK, I'm not that versed in the Mac world and was basing that on what I'd read here. :oops:

ElSlunko
March 12th, 2010, 12:39 AM
It wouldn't work for the devs who use Macs, anyway. Macs have the close button on the far left, not jammed in the middle, to the right of the other two buttons, as it is in Lucid alpha.

I do like how theories start to turn into facts as more people reiterate them.

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 12:54 AM
I do like how theories start to turn into facts as more people reiterate them.

People make up theories about things and these things morph into facts generally when there is a lack of fact in the first instance. But I'm glad you like it.

It seems so far, no Ubuntu dev has yet to state any facts about the decision making process behind this usability crippling change.

Toadinator
March 12th, 2010, 12:59 AM
Why do you assume that the fix is going to cover the themes shipped by default? That's not going to be the case; the intention is that the button order will only apply to the new themes, Radiance and Ambiance. That it does not right now is considered a bug, which will be resolved for the final release.

Thanks for clarifying, I guess. I figured that was one of the options they can go through with, but I hope they change their minds (I thought they were going to re-consider the button order as well for the new themes). I mean, why would the button order only apply to two themes? That doesn't fix the issue. People should switch themes and expect no button change; people using the new themes that happen to be Google Chrome fans will have to run it with metacity instead of the space-saving default :(. Until they can explain the reason behind the button switching, it doesn't exactly make sense to be only for two themes.

gexi
March 12th, 2010, 01:02 AM
this similarity argument is a total no-go for me. it could be applied to both sides btw. (win - left, osx - right) it's totally not interesting wether something is ripping another something of. why is this so important to everyone.

the «we don't want it» point is more likely to come into consideration. there seems to be a vast majority that dislikes the buttons on the left side and/or in that order.
i was on of them too, but i just left the settings the way they are. i never got confused and i really started to like it, and meanwhile i think it's intuitive and beautiful and a really nice idea. in retrospective of the critisism from the community from the first day on i bet a lot of the users just reset their gconf and never really tried it and kept true to the opinion they had at the very first glance.

a user that has to adjust because he switched from windows really has to adjust to a whole lot of things, buttons are the least of his problems, because i think it will be pretty obvious for a windows-user what the red X does ...

hmm, maybe i just don't understand why there's such a big discussion after the «messing up themes» argument got eradicated. :confused:

Toadinator
March 12th, 2010, 01:27 AM
hmm, maybe i just don't understand why there's such a big discussion after the «messing up themes» argument got eradicated. :confused:

Because, as I've been saying quite a bit, non-metacity-using applications still have the correct button order/location, making them look out of place. That, and there isn't any usability testing behind this change, and it seems more because it's "different" or a preference of one of the design team members or something; rather amateurish if you ask me.

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 01:28 AM
a user that has to adjust because he switched from windows really has to adjust to a whole lot of things, buttons are the least of his problems, because i think it will be pretty obvious for a windows-user what the red X does ...

It's not so much the one time change from using Windows to Ubuntu where there are indeed a large number of new things to get used to, its more to do with having to use both OS's regularly and switching between different layouts that becomes annoying. I wish I could use Firefox at work, but I have to use IE and I often find myself searching for the home or refresh icon because they are in different places.

I think what is irking me most is the lack of transparency being exhibited by the devs in explaining the decision to change and if they ignore the community feedback then their naivety too.

Ultimately if I can use the various geeky methods to reset the icons in 10.04 and there's a theme I like that doesn't look too awful with the old icon position and layout then I'll personally be happy.

What is bad though is this new layout may become the default and yet another one of those 'new things to get used to' for users moving away from Windows to Ubuntu. Ubuntu needs less straws on the camel's back, not more.

Toadinator
March 12th, 2010, 01:39 AM
What is bad though is this new layout may become the default and yet another one of those 'new things to get used to' for users moving away from Windows to Ubuntu. Ubuntu needs less straws on the camel's back, not more.

+1 Agree

The less hurdles people need to jump to get them to want to use to Ubuntu, the better, right? Adding one more change to the list of changes won't make it any easier for people to want to switch.

gexi
March 12th, 2010, 01:51 AM
Because, as I've been saying quite a bit, non-metacity-using applications still have the correct button order/location, making them look out of place. That, and there isn't any usability testing behind this change, and it seems more because it's "different" or a preference of one of the design team members or something; rather amateurish if you ask me.

hmm, i really don't have a counter-argument for the non-metacity-applications... i'll have to give you that one. (one of the developers said, those applications have a different button-layout for their osx-versions too, and could do that for ubuntu as well, but i think we shouldn't need to be dependent on that)

about your second point: i don't think such concepts can really be tested without just doing it and waiting a few weeks to see what people will say about it. it's still an alpha and the button layout is to be tested now. this is not really possible if people keep switching back the buttons the way they were. every change is connected with a certain risk that the concept just fails, but this shouldn't stop us trying to find new ways of user-experience. i think being quick in exactly this thing is a big advantage of opensource, making it able to explore new ways of thinking in the first place. and i know this is an lts and developers should be careful with big changes, but it's not as if developers were setting the default keyboard layout to dvorak.

Toadinator
March 12th, 2010, 01:53 AM
about your second point: i don't think such concepts can really be tested without just doing it and waiting a few weeks to see what people will say about it. it's still an alpha and the button layout is to be tested now.

Exactly why we're complaining :D! The louder the opposition, the more people opposing the change, the more likely they'll change back, hence the whole point of this being a testing cycle ;).

gexi
March 12th, 2010, 01:59 AM
Exactly why we're complaining :D! The louder the opposition, the more people opposing the change, the more likely they'll change back, hence the whole point of this being a testing cycle ;).

ok ;) but now i don't believe you have your buttons on the left ... :p

Toadinator
March 12th, 2010, 02:11 AM
ok ;) but now i don't believe you have your buttons on the left ... :p

Still using Karmic, and switching to Mint some time soon (it's fantastic if I haven't said it enough). And yes, my buttons are on the right (because that's where they're supposed to me ;) ). Having them on the left would make windows too cluttered because of the menu bar, and I might accidentally click one of those buttons instead of a menu.

gexi
March 12th, 2010, 02:25 AM
Still using Karmic, and switching to Mint some time soon (it's fantastic if I haven't said it enough). And yes, my buttons are on the right (because that's where they're supposed to me ;) ). Having them on the left would make windows too cluttered because of the menu bar, and I might accidentally click one of those buttons instead of a menu.

but that was my original point. the outcry came too fast. i have a suspicion that not very much people are actually testing the button-layout...

hmm, i guess us two (plus every other lucid-user) have to say what we think and just wait for the outcome. it's more easy to find consensus on technical problems than on tasks concerning aesthetic- and motoric-experience, which always have such a high degree of subjectivity. aahh, how i wish we could live in immanuel kants mundus intelligibilis right now ... ;)

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 02:44 AM
Hmmm... so we're all just testing the button move are we? Next we'll be told that this is Ubuntu usability testing 'in progress'. Rubbish! This icon change is badly thought out and poorly implemented.

Some things just shouldn't be changed for the sake of change alone. Changes need to be justifiable with clearly stated benefits to the user.

Why do people think that the original 1980s Presentation Manager keyboard shortcuts for cut, copy and paste - Shift-Delete, Control-Insert and Shift-Insert respectively, still work in Ubuntu today? Go on, try them out in your Ubuntu forums message window in Firefox/Chrome or writing a document in Office Writer! The Macintosh inspired Control-X, Control-C and Control-V superseded them long, long ago, so why are they still there in an operating system that is not of that era? Compatibility! Usability! Standardisation!

A common mindset among users and developers shared over many years has meant these things are immutable. They don't need to change. Control-P will always mean print, Control-O will always be open, Alt-Space will always bring up the window menu and in that menu, hitting N will minimise, X will maximise, M will move and R will resize. F1, like a trusted friend, will call up the help pages in an application, Control-B will bold your text, just as Control-U will underline it and Control-I will italicise it and when you're finished Control-S will save your document and Alt-F4 will close your application and we'll always be able to switch to one of our many running apps on our Ubuntu desktop using Alt-Tab or Shift-Alt-Tab.

All of these things are known and accepted in the MS Windows and Linux GUI worlds and a large proportion of them apply in the Apple world too. There is no internationally recognised standard that they adhere to as far as I am aware. No one will change them, no one will remove them, because those that do would be treated as fools playing with things that they don't understand by the development community and those users that understand why these things are.

It's at this level I currently view whoever has suggested the change of icon location and icon order for the new themes in Ubuntu; foolish. They just don't know what they're playing with. They don't understand usability or compatibility they have little regard for standardisation and they are ignoring their user community.

It's unacceptable and that's why we're shouting!

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 02:49 AM
The button order thing is temporary; regardless of whether the default theme has the buttons on the left or right at release time, other themes will not have a messed up button order (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/39). The fact that they do now is a temporary bug.

Thus, "it breaks every other Metacity theme" is not a valid argument against the current design.

Like this post say, it is just a bug and will be fixed.

Toadinator
March 12th, 2010, 03:05 AM
Like this post say, it is just a bug and will be fixed.

But think: should that order really only apply to the Light themes? What sense would it make? Even if they had some script running in the background changing the button order depending on the theme you were using, that would be very inconsistent wouldn't it? What about Kubuntu/Xubuntu? Should they have this there too?

gexi
March 12th, 2010, 03:14 AM
yes, sv87411, what you say is true, but there is a significant difference in quality if you take keyboard-shortcuts on the one, or the visible arrangement of interactable items in the titlebar on the other hand. there's an additional sensual factor, which is not present in shortcuts, and the similarity of this sensual factor is actually higher than its difference. there are three symbols on the top of the window, one of which is a red X.

and actually i think change for changes sake can sometimes be good. one can't always elaborate a theory of possible benefit, you just practically try and do.

don't you think the effect of this change might be overestimated by many? (because i think it's peanuts, there's no big difference at all, neighter in win, nor in mac, nor in that layout, i never failed to hit a button in any of those layouts and after two attempts the additional delay of 0.5secs was gone too, and i don't know why i'm writing so much about it. maybe the discussion was to one sided for my taste and i like dispute ... and those left sided strangely arranged buttons, but just a little bit ;) don't be angry at me for saying so ... that was the inital reason to ask people to really test it: for me it's peanuts and likeable ... )

bshosey
March 12th, 2010, 03:39 AM
I usually go to gconf-editor and navigate to apps>metacity>button_layout and I just put :menu in there. So I only have one button and that is the menu button. I also change the action_right_click_titlebar to minimize. This may sound nutty but I never accidentally close windows and can actually maximize and minimize faster as well because I have a larger area to right click and double click on.

bshosey
March 12th, 2010, 04:26 AM
What I think would be cool to see is the Menu dot on the far right. That tittle of the window on the far left. The File menu on the far right just to the left of the menu dot. All on one row! And no minimize, Maximize or close buttons.

why register?
March 12th, 2010, 04:39 AM
The Ubuntu design team haven't just jumped the shark - they're vigorously corpse humping it.

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 04:58 AM
But think: should that order really only apply to the Light themes? What sense would it make? Even if they had some script running in the background changing the button order depending on the theme you were using, that would be very inconsistent wouldn't it? What about Kubuntu/Xubuntu? Should they have this there too?

I personally prefer everything to be on the right just like in Windows. Joe Plumber may get mad enough to beat his PC with a pipe wrench if you change it on him, but I doubt he will be using Linux any time soon. Please keep in mind that some newcomers may like the difference because they came to Ubuntu looking for something different.

On the other hand, Ubuntu is moving out of the contemporary OS look and trying something new. If enough people complain about it during Beta 1&2, maybe they'll change the light themes back to the Windows format.

I only have one panel on my Ubuntu installs and they are on the bottom, so clicking the wrong button isn't a problem for me. The only disadvantage for me and some other users is having to use a touchpad to move the pointer from the right side pane where the scroller is all the way over to the right to close a Window. My fix for that is using the Ctrl-W keys to close windows.

d5j9
March 12th, 2010, 05:44 AM
don't you think the effect of this change might be overestimated by many? (because i think it's peanuts, there's no big difference at all, neighter in win, nor in mac, nor in that layout, i never failed to hit a button in any of those layouts and after two attempts the additional delay of 0.5secs was gone too, and i don't know why i'm writing so much about it. maybe the discussion was to one sided for my taste and i like dispute ...

The point is about new users and more importantly that this change was implemented RIGHT on the UI freeze without checking reaction first, and nobody is telling us why this change is necessary, even with all this outcry. It just seems like the developers are blowing off the community, windows vista style.

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 05:47 AM
windows vista style.

Ouch:!:

ElSlunko
March 12th, 2010, 06:02 AM
I guess those who want it on the left should start threads and blogs to praise the change.

dcstar
March 12th, 2010, 06:22 AM
Warning: (very) old joke alert:

"Our esteemed President the all-knowing omnipotent Idi Amin has decreed that all cars in Uganda will change from driving on the left-hand side of the road to the right-hand side, and this change will take place next Monday.
.
.
.
If this change proves successful, trucks and buses will follow the next week......."


Remind you of anything? ;)

Madspyman
March 12th, 2010, 07:51 AM
I guess those who want it on the left should start threads and blogs to praise the change.

I don't think anybody ever asked for that in the first place. The new design was instituted by Mac users, hired for the overhaul.

http://jordanopensource.org/freeplanet/article/new-ubuntu-design-created-apple-mac

blakamin
March 12th, 2010, 08:05 AM
It just seems like the developers are blowing off the community, windows vista style.
Nah, they're blowing off the community ubuntu style, just like they've done for the last 2 releases...

NCLI
March 12th, 2010, 08:48 AM
Nah, they're blowing off the community ubuntu style, just like they've done for the last 2 releases...

Oh, yes, just like how they renamed the Store to the Center when its name was unpopular, like how they dropped the brown when people found it ugly, like how they dropped usplash for plymouth after the community bemoaned its absence, like how they're working to replace apt-daemon with packagekit as the backend for the USC when people complained about it, etc, etc, ETC!

Seriously people, you're acting like Canonical totally ignores the community, which is not true. This is an Alpha, a testing release, this kind of change is what it's for.

If you do not like it, complain, file bugs, just like we did when the USC was the USS, but do not claim that Canonical doesn't listen to the community.

Keyper7
March 12th, 2010, 09:18 AM
I don't think anybody ever asked for that in the first place. The new design was instituted by Mac users, hired for the overhaul.

http://jordanopensource.org/freeplanet/article/new-ubuntu-design-created-apple-mac

Stop repeating the same point and spamming the same link over and over again.

The forum, and this particular subject, have enough redundancy already.

Madspyman
March 12th, 2010, 09:27 AM
Stop repeating the same point and spamming the same link over and over again.

The forum, and this particular subject, have enough redundancy already.

Noted.

You're right it's a real hot button issue I should probably stop mentioning, it only pisses people off who are already pissed as it is. Redundant is right.

Let me say something positive, Lucid Lynx is the fastest release of Ubuntu I've used so far, and it's still just the Alpha, I can't wait to see what the final release is like.

Jay_Bee
March 12th, 2010, 09:56 AM
This screenshot rocks, those little dots in the upper right are a nice touch http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MOCs5B8LekE/S5lbiNC6-5I/AAAAAAAAAdo/3uHnKDVWsZE/s1600/full_comp.png

robert shearer
March 12th, 2010, 10:18 AM
Perhaps some of the difficulty with the button order is our habituated word association ?

Going from minimize:maximize:close to maximize:minimize:close tripped me up every time until I reprogrammed my associations by using different words.

Now I read it as big:little:gone to get the order and have no problem.

Once I have become habituated to this I will try replacing it with maximize:minimize:close and see if the associating has been reprogrammed for me.

anyone have another positive alternative that works for them ??

ElSlunko
March 12th, 2010, 10:23 AM
The big problem I see with buttons to the left is that by default they're near the menu for most programs. This isn't true in OSX since the menu's are on the top bar. Other than that, there's no slow down in my "productivity".

Kazade
March 12th, 2010, 11:12 AM
This says it all:

http://wine.budgetdedicated.com/offsite/lucid-window-controls.png

From Scott Ritchie's blog (http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/194)

PenguinInside
March 12th, 2010, 11:58 AM
You may find it comfortable and in isolation I am sure you, and for that matter I, may come to get used to it... if only I were solely an Ubuntu user. Alas I work for a company that only offers me a Windows XP desktop and after using that for 8 or 9 hours a day moving to top right and knowing that the buttons go minimise, maximise, close, I have no desire to come home, fire up my Ubuntu laptop and force my brain to adjust to move to top left, maximise, minimise, close.


Great point, and one which hasn't been addressed by the Mac-loving designers.

Our main catchment area is Windows users. Here are a few use cases:
-Children
-Seniors
-Moms
-Office workers who don't need Windows apps
-Technical people like you and me

In most of these cases people are using other OS's often, and there's just no good reason to force them to be jarred when moving from one to another.

Ubuntu, as it's been so far, has been Linux for Humans. Easy to get started with. Why ruin a good thing?

I don't know of anyone who moved from Mac to Ubuntu, so why should Ubuntu cater to Mac designers?

Keyper7
March 12th, 2010, 12:34 PM
This says it all:

(snip)

From Scott Ritchie's blog (http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/194)

Actually, that amusing but otherwise irrelevant picture does not really say much compared to the rest of the post. This little gem is much more important:


What’s disturbing is that Planet Ubuntu has been rather silent on the topic. No one’s posted a real defense of this change yet, or for that matter even claimed responsibility. It’s like there’s this collective unease about criticizing something that feels like it came directly from on high. So, instead, people are just silent. I’d certainly be if I worked for Canonical. Perhaps I should be, as I still hope to work for them.

If you read between the lines, you can tell that people aren’t too happy about it. The most flattering thing a developer’s said about the left-sided Window controls is that they “got used to them after a few days”. We’re quick to praise the theme (it’s gorgeous), but talking about this major sudden change to the window controls feels like taboo. That’s incredibly unhealthy for a community project. It’s like there’s this collective unease and everyone’s worrying if we’re about to release something embarrassing.

Considering he's a member of Planet Ubuntu and well-known among developers, Scott was very bold. Wasn't aggressive, but didn't pull any punches, said something that had to be said and helped to finally break the taboo he's referring to. I'm eagerly awaiting for the consequences of his post.

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 01:01 PM
there's an additional sensual factor, which is not present in shortcuts, and the similarity of this sensual factor is actually higher than its difference. there are three symbols on the top of the window, one of which is a red X.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

I would think the visual sensory input when using a mouse added to the motor actions of hand movement and eye movement would mean it is even more imporant to maintain familiarity in GUI input environments over keyboard input environments.

If a keyboard short cut is changed I need to re-program my brain to remember the change and then re-learn the new hand/finger motor movement for that shortcut. So long as my keyboard remains in a QWERTY layout this will take some time but, eventually become second nature.

If a GUI window layout changes I have to re-program my brain to remember the change and then re-learn the new eye motor movement to locate the new object position on the display AND the new hand motor movement to move the mouse.

And let's not forget we don't all use a two button, scroll wheel mouse. Some people use a touch pad, some a trackpoint, some a track ball. If you need to switch between these input methods - in my personal daily PC use for I switch between a two button, scroll wheel mouse at work to a two button trackpoint device on my laptop at home - you have to re-learn even more motor changes for hand/finger movements.

I suspect most people work in a primary application on their PC and this will be maximised to fill the display. I am writing this now in IE which is a maximised window on my PC. If I were a big mouse user (which I am not, but I notice nowadays a huge number of people innefficiently are), but when I do, I will move my right hand to my mouse and instinctively flick the mouse up and right. This will pretty much guarantee my mouse cursor is now on top of or only a very small move away from my window close button and with just a litte more effort I can maximise/restore my window or minimise it with a single click. This is insinctive. This works on my Ubuntu laptop too because I don't run a top panel - something I configure easily and the Ubuntu desktop provides the tools for. So for me switching between Windows and Ubuntu on a daily basis is mostly painless.

Now lets consider the new Windows user to Ubuntu. It is my opinion that they too will likely have these instinctual mouse movements engrained into their brain and motor learning over many years of use. As I have said before, the minimise and maximise buttons at least have been top right of a window on Microsoft GUI based operating systems for over 20 years now and the minimise, maximise, close configuration has been around since Windows 95. Yes, 15 years! They've got a lot of burnt in learning there.

Now when moving to something new we like to experience things that benefit us - stability, cost, ease of transition, compatibility or things that wow us - graphical setups like Compiz is one of the few examples I can think of here. If any of these things are compromised they will taint the new experience. A lack of stability or an increase in cost are no-brainers for tainting a new experience. But, ease of transition and compatibility are crucial too. If you make my transition difficult because you have decided that just to be different from what I have now, you will change the familiar layout I am used to, then that will taint my experience. If all those keyboard shortcuts I mentioned were different in Ubuntu I would never have moved, it's that simple - I use the keyboard as my main PC/human interface as it is still the most efficient. As it were they weren't different - excellent. Again, the window layouts were familiar too - excellent, another tick in the 'ease of transition' box.

You must get my point here as I am not going to labour it any more. There is no need to make these changes except for change sake and just to be different from, well, everyone else. They are alienating the current community and have the ability to alienate new users before they even get into the community.

Being different is only good when being different necessitates survival. Sometimes, being the same isn't such a bad thing.

If Ubuntu truly is for humans then let's start listening to them!

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 01:57 PM
Oh and maybe the Ubuntu devs should go do some research on Human Computer Interaction and it's importance. Start with these links and read on:

http://www.info.kochi-tech.ac.jp/ren/hci_related_links.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93computer_interaction

The "THIRTEEN PRINCIPLES OF DISPLAY DESIGN" in the Wikipedia page is especially interesting. Point 13 for example:

"13. Principle of consistency

Old habits from other displays will easily transfer to support processing of new displays if they are designed in a consistent manner. A user’s long-term memory will trigger actions that are expected to be appropriate. A design must accept this fact and utilize consistency among different displays."

Oops... almost forgot these guys. http://research.microsoft.com/apps/dp/search.aspx?q=HCI#p=1&ps=36&so=1&sb=&fr=&to=&fd=&td=&rt=&f=&a=&pn=HCI&pa=&pd=

They've pumped $millions into HCI over the last 25 years and the current Ubuntu user interface owes a lot to their efforts. We might not like them very much. We might want to be a little bit different from them, but unless Ubuntu has similar levels of resource to apply to this sort of research, then you aren't going to learn an awful lot more than is already known. If the current window/icon layout didn't work, MS would have changed it by now - its still that way in MS Windows 7. Ubuntu should ask themselves why MS havent't fiddled with this design over all that time. Probably because it works and as the old saying goes 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'.

copperfish
March 12th, 2010, 02:33 PM
Ubuntu is starting to feel more and more like a fork of itself. With Karmic I already spend too much time post install fixing the Ubuntu "enhancements". Removing Empathy, the notification icon and the Ubuntu version of OpenOffice to replace them with Pidgin and the stock version of OpenOffice. The location of the notification buttons is just an irritation I deal with. The only real reason for me to keep using Ubuntu is the tendency of software developers to release .debs for Ubuntu, making my life easier.

This is edging me further and further away from Ubuntu and I've been using it as my only OS since 8.04.

Fedora 13 is looking more and more like my next upgrade. That or Xubuntu.

forcecore
March 12th, 2010, 03:59 PM
wait a minute is those buttons still on left? how long i tell if those buttons stays there then include simple thing in System-Tools menu DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS do not sleep.


http://eftimie.ro/store/window_controls.py

howefield
March 12th, 2010, 04:07 PM
With Karmic I already spend too much time post install fixing the Ubuntu "enhancements". Removing Empathy, the notification icon and the Ubuntu version of OpenOffice to replace them with Pidgin and the stock version of OpenOffice.

Do a minimal install and add only what you want.

Save you installing it, only to uninstall it so you can reinstall.. or something like that. :)

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 04:22 PM
Ubuntu is starting to feel more and more like a fork of itself. With Karmic I already spend too much time post install fixing the Ubuntu "enhancements". Removing Empathy, the notification icon and the Ubuntu version of OpenOffice to replace them with Pidgin and the stock version of OpenOffice. The location of the notification buttons is just an irritation I deal with. The only real reason for me to keep using Ubuntu is the tendency of software developers to release .debs for Ubuntu, making my life easier.

This is edging me further and further away from Ubuntu and I've been using it as my only OS since 8.04.

Fedora 13 is looking more and more like my next upgrade. That or Xubuntu.

I never knew there was a difference between the OpenOffice shipped with Ubuntu and the version on the OpenOffice website.

howefield
March 12th, 2010, 04:32 PM
I never knew there was a difference between the OpenOffice shipped with Ubuntu and the version on the OpenOffice website.


Load up OpenOffice Writer and click on Help > About OpenOffice.org

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 04:35 PM
But what is the difference between the Ubuntu version and the OoO version?

Voynix
March 12th, 2010, 04:36 PM
Evolution, not revolution. I have been upgrading Ubuntu since Edgy, no clean installs, but simple upgrades. I guess I am missing grub2, ext4, and other goodies, but I have to confess I have a working OS that evolves, and enhances both my personal and professional work. It is also true it takes some time to tweak it to my needs, and if I happen to do a clean install at work or on one of my testing machines (remove mono and dependencies, re-state google search engine, install latex, gimp, R, dust theme, etc) it only takes a couple of terminal lines, get backups ready, and do the debian magic. A couple of minutes to tailor my OS,a and an upgraded OS with all its updated packages, enhancements and novelties will accompany me for the next 6 months. Let's not forget we are free to change the default settings, we can arrange the buttons back to the right, change the default theme, get back our beloved Ctrl-Alt-Delete sequence. It is also true, however, that for the last couple of years I am finding my "required" personal settings to take longer: more packages I need to un-install or install, more default decisions to undo... Yes, the more I use Ubuntu, the more I miss the "it just works" out of the box philosophy, am I becoming a bit complacent and unwilling to accept change? Should I be annoyed when my Windows colleagues do not embrace Linux, change after being challenged by a simple button layout that takes 2 seconds to undo? A paradox. We have been so spoiled with Ubuntu that we are quick to pull the trigger and kill the messenger. Ubuntu is doing an excellent job, I do all of my professional work using Ubuntu, I publish my research, do my statistics, prepare my work, listen to my music, watch TV and enjoy the Internet with the hard work Canonical has provided. Am I disatisfied with the left-oriented buttons? Sure. Am I going to add another line to my defaults to revert? Of course. But Ubuntu makes my life easier. I find it hard to believe some of us are so quick to condemn an alpha release, criticise hard work and a fully working alternative to commercial offerings, post negative comments and even threaten with abandoning the project for the the simple position of 3 tiny little buttons. Maybe canonical should embrace evolution more than revolution? Ubuntu has come a long way, there is no need to try to change the world in 6 months. v.

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 04:36 PM
Load up OpenOffice Writer and click on Help > About OpenOffice.org

But, what is the difference operationally, if any?

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 04:44 PM
<snip>

They do embrace evolution, I have to uninstall it with every install I do. Do you expect someone coming from Windows, where customization is almost impossible, to be able to figure out how to change the location of the buttons?

Voynix
March 12th, 2010, 04:50 PM
They do embrace evolution, I have to uninstall it with every install I do. Do you expect someone coming from Windows, where customization is almost impossible, to be able to figure out how to change the location of the buttons?


I agree, thus my suggestion: evolution, not revolution.

howefield
March 12th, 2010, 04:53 PM
But, what is the difference operationally, if any?

Operationally ? I don't know, nor care.

I think this answers at least some of your question, but others more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong. I think Ubuntu OpenOffice is based on Go-oo, more info here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-oo#Some_differences_between_OpenOffice.org_and_Go-oo

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 04:55 PM
...It is also true, however, that for the last couple of years I am finding my "required" personal settings to take longer: more packages I need to un-install or install, more default decisions to undo... Yes, the more I use Ubuntu, the more I miss the "it just works" out of the box philosophy, am I becoming a bit complacent and unwilling to accept change?

Have you never had any desire to feed some of these personal settings and decisions that you are increasingly having to make back into the Ubuntu community?

It seems you are willing to accept each and every change imposed on you and fix it back to how you like it later without complaint. Which is fine because you have the knowledge to be able to do that. And possibly you even enjoy these aspects of using Ubuntu.

You admit you miss the 'it just works out of the box' philosophy and yet don't question why this philosophy is no longer present. You seem not to want back the 'it just works' setup and you are happy to produce your own personal Ubuntu.Voynix distro.

The Ubuntu team do do a fine job, but they have to be kept on the straight and narrow by the community as a whole. If we don't feedback our negative and positive views how will they ever know that what they are doing is good or bad?

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 04:57 PM
I agree, thus my suggestion: evolution, not revolution.

There was an earlier post from 23meg stating that there is a bug that is causing the buttons to be on the left in every theme. Supposedly they are only supposed to be on the left on the new light themes, but I think that will still mess up newcomers that have no clue on how customizable Linux is. I am hoping they change the buttons back for this reason. I have converted a few people to Ubuntu, but they don't know enough to be able to fix this, so I will be answering a lot of calls it they upgrade without me there.

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 05:01 PM
Operationally ? I don't know, nor care.

I think this answers at least some of your question, but others more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong. I think Ubuntu OpenOffice is based on Go-oo, more info here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-oo#Some_differences_between_OpenOffice.org_and_Go-oo

I was just wondering. If it is a big enough deal for someone to swap them out every time, there has to be a reason. I write a lot of papers, being in college, and if there is some kind of autowrite button that reads my mind and puts it in writing, it would make my life easier.

nerdy_kid
March 12th, 2010, 05:20 PM
i voted i dont care but due to the fact that it breaks other themes, i revote right

copperfish
March 12th, 2010, 06:38 PM
@howefield Good point, but things like OpenOffice were - if I rememeber correctly - too dependent on ubuntu-desktop etc. so you almost had to install GNOME yourself. I stand to be corrected.

@iRock The Ubuntu version of OpenOffice is related to http://go-oo.org/ AFAIK and I just prefer the default OpenOffice install.

gexi
March 12th, 2010, 07:10 PM
i voted i dont care but due to the fact that it breaks other themes, i revote right

it will not break other themes.

Bill_MI
March 12th, 2010, 07:17 PM
After trying Lucid in a VM I went looking how to get the buttons where they belong. Glad to see I'm not alone and it took no time at all to locate this thread. :P

Kazade
March 12th, 2010, 07:59 PM
My opinion isn't worth much, but I wrote a blog post about where *I'd* put the buttons: http://kazade.livejournal.com/4695.html

Note: Opinions inside :)

skillllllz
March 12th, 2010, 08:06 PM
After trying Lucid in a VM I went looking how to get the buttons where they belong. Glad to see I'm not alone and it took no time at all to locate this thread. :P

Likewise.

I really do not understand the logic behind this change. It is looked at by the lay person as an attempt to "follow" Apple and a major annoyance if they are coming from any other OS besides Mac OS. This only serves to discourage many people from adopting Ubuntu as their OS of choice.

I believe it should be put back on the right, and there should be an option under the "Appearance" menu that allows users to change the position and layout of the buttons. Leaving the choice available to the end user is always best method, esp. with something like this.

Toadinator
March 12th, 2010, 09:13 PM
There was an earlier post from 23meg stating that there is a bug that is causing the buttons to be on the left in every theme. Supposedly they are only supposed to be on the left on the new light themes, but I think that will still mess up newcomers that have no clue on how customizable Linux is. I am hoping they change the buttons back for this reason. I have converted a few people to Ubuntu, but they don't know enough to be able to fix this, so I will be answering a lot of calls it they upgrade without me there.

Exactly! Why in the world would it make sense to have this button order only for two themes? Hello? Anyone?

Also, to those of you that say "left or right doesn't matter, people will get used to it": it does matter because if they're on the right they keep the window less cluttered (and it's what people are the most used to). You can change them to the left if you ever want (most of the people that do will know how, unlike a lot of Windows users). Also, what about the fact that the button order (as well as the side) completely messes up consistency with popular applications like Chrome/Songbird, and other Ubuntu-variants/Linux distros?

This is probably at least the sixth time I've had to say this, and people still avoid the issue: why do I have to keep repeating myself?

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 09:26 PM
This is probably at least the sixth time I've had to say this, and people still avoid the issue: why do I have to keep repeating myself?

You are bored?:D

I have the feeling that no matter what we do, they are still going to release with the light themes' buttons on the left, which is sad because I like the light themes.

fab.head
March 12th, 2010, 09:26 PM
My opinion isn't worth much, but I wrote a blog post about where *I'd* put the buttons: http://kazade.livejournal.com/4695.html

I fully agree with your blog post.
This would also be my favourite layout:


[max][min]........Window title (centred)........[close]




--

Keyper7
March 12th, 2010, 09:52 PM
My opinion isn't worth much, but I wrote a blog post about where *I'd* put the buttons: http://kazade.livejournal.com/4695.html

Interesting. I have a slightly different philosophy. I like my titlebars to be consistent with my top panel. They both follow the system:

LEFT: clickable things
CENTER: show status, non-clickable
RIGHT: things that show status AND are clickable to act on such status

For the panel, this means: panel menubar on the left (clickable), conky on the center (status, with the help of the lovely gnome-swallow-applet) and the notification area and indicators on the right (clickable and status).

For the windows, this means: minimize and close on the left (clickable), title on the center (status) and maximize on the right (clickable and status, as the icon is changes depending on the window being maximized or not)

I've been very happy with this philosophy for some time now. Feels very consistent and confortable, and I never clicked on close by accident.

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 10:20 PM
This is probably at least the sixth time I've had to say this, and people still avoid the issue: why do I have to keep repeating myself?

People aren't avoiding the issue, they're just plain not seeing it.

They don't understand there's even an issue there. From what I've read there is a growing number of people who will just roll over and accept whatever rubbish is fed to them because "It looks cool", "I got used to it", "What's the big deal it's just buttons", "I like it this way <insert personal preference that has nothing to do with the rest of the community or general usability>", "The devs picked it so it must be good" etc etc etc.

Often no critical thought over whether this change was ever needed in the first instance. If the button move/re-order had never been suggested or implemented you wouldn't now be reading and contributing to a thread where people were asking for the buttons to be moved to the left! Most people had probably never even considered right hand side buttons to be a problem until now. And it's still not a problem!

No one is really asking for this change. No one really needs it.

What is profoundly, stupendously, amazingly gobsmacking is that with the amount of negative press received over this that we're still discussing it and that someone in the Ubuntu dev community hasn't said "Yeah, bad idea. Let's just forget it and do something worthwhile".

And as that hasn't been said yet, we're all wondering if there's an elephant in the room. Ooooh maybe something along the lines of "We paid a team of design experts a lot of money to come up with this idea and we're damned if we'll admit it is cr*p so you're all gonna have to lump it!"

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 10:32 PM
If you want it to look like Windows, then by all means go use Windows.

Most of us agree that the new button idea is not a good idea. Should we go start a picket line on our nearest dev's lawn? I am not going to blow a fuse over this and I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

seeker5528
March 12th, 2010, 10:40 PM
Because, as I've been saying quite a bit, non-metacity-using applications still have the correct button order/location, making them look out of place.

"Non-metacity-using applications" doesn't compute. :p

Either a window has a window border or it doesn't, a development framework could force developers to do things a certain way or they may choose to do their own stuff so they can draw their own custom stuff where they want, in these cases there is always the risk they will not look right and that's not really relevant to where the buttons are in a Metacity theme or how they look because these applications are potentially going to look out of place no matter what window manager/DE you are running.

Later, Seeker

sv87411
March 12th, 2010, 10:46 PM
@iRock. I don't want it to look like Windows, I just want it to be usable. If that means looking like Windows then so beit.

Your sig references 'Bug #1" and point 3. of what should happen in Bug #1 is "The system shall become more and more user friendly as time passes."

This proposed change goes against that.

Why do you reference Bug #1 and yet don't really care too much about its principles?

I won't lose any sleep either. And if I want to blow my fuse over this, then that's my choice. At least someone is. ;)

uRock
March 12th, 2010, 10:57 PM
There is no usability issues. If there was a usability issue, then Apple wouldn't have their's on the left.

Someone new to Ubuntu may think it is different and like it that much more for being different.

I hope they do put the buttons back on the left where most people are used to them being.

People whined about Pontiac making the GTO a front wheel drive V8 because it was different from every other V8 vehicle made in America, yet there are a lot of people driving them.

Merk42
March 12th, 2010, 11:04 PM
There is no usability issues. If there was a usability issue, then Apple wouldn't have their's on the left.

Someone new to Ubuntu may think it is different and like it that much more for being different.

I hope they do put the buttons back on the left where most people are used to them being.

People whined about Pontiac making the GTO a front wheel drive V8 because it was different from every other V8 vehicle made in America, yet there are a lot of people driving them.

It's been said before, but I understand that you wouldn't read 45+ pages.

The reason it works on Mac is due to the global menu bar. The buttons don't have the issue of being too close to "File, Edit, Etc".

It's a usability issue in Ubuntu because at best it's cramped right above "File, Edit, Etc" and at worst (maximized) crammed between that and Applications Places System

ElSlunko
March 12th, 2010, 11:09 PM
It's been said before, but I understand that you wouldn't read 45+ pages.

The reason it works on Mac is due to the global menu bar. The buttons don't have the issue of being too close to "File, Edit, Etc".

It's a usability issue in Ubuntu because at best it's cramped right above "File, Edit, Etc" and at worst (maximized) crammed between that and Applications Places System

This! It's a huge and valid point. If this were not the case then I would be on the devs side in letting them some creative freedom.

Toadinator
March 12th, 2010, 11:36 PM
It's been said before, but I understand that you wouldn't read 45+ pages.

The reason it works on Mac is due to the global menu bar. The buttons don't have the issue of being too close to "File, Edit, Etc".

It's a usability issue in Ubuntu because at best it's cramped right above "File, Edit, Etc" and at worst (maximized) crammed between that and Applications Places System

Again, for the 50th time, Agreed. +1. If some of you don't exactly like clicking the "next" button 40 something times, try the Firefox addon Auto Pager (scroll down and it loads the next page :D). Makes reading things much easier sometimes.

aysiu
March 12th, 2010, 11:50 PM
There is no usability issues. If there was a usability issue, then Apple wouldn't have their's on the left. Well, first of all, Mac OS X does have usability issues. I don't understand how you can assume anything Mac does is definitely okay as far as usability goes.

Secondly, despite the fact it is not a usability issue in this case for Macs, Ubuntu has not implemented the left-side buttons in the same way Mac OS X has.

1. In Mac OS X, there is a universal toolbar that is not always next to the window close buttons.

2. Closing the last window in an application in OS X doesn't quit the application, so you can quickly relaunch your window or reopen your document without any lag if you accidentally close the window.

3. The close button on Mac OS X is on the far left of the left side, not on the far right of the left side.

magneze
March 13th, 2010, 12:40 AM
There is no usability issues. If there was a usability issue, then Apple wouldn't have their's on the left.

Someone new to Ubuntu may think it is different and like it that much more for being different.

I hope they do put the buttons back on the left where most people are used to them being.

People whined about Pontiac making the GTO a front wheel drive V8 because it was different from every other V8 vehicle made in America, yet there are a lot of people driving them.The usability issues are about compatibility with other systems, including previous versions of Ubuntu. Also cohesion within the system - close buttons in Firefox tabs and many other areas are on the right.

Your point about the GTO isn't really relevant. Maybe if you think about moving the steering wheel to the other side or the gear shift to the door. :popcorn:

cariboo907
March 13th, 2010, 12:52 AM
Personally, I think we should wait until the beta drops before complaining. The last several releases, the final art drop is usually in the beta.

uRock
March 13th, 2010, 12:57 AM
The usability issues are about compatibility with other systems, including previous versions of Ubuntu. Also cohesion within the system - close buttons in Firefox tabs and many other areas are on the right.

Your point about the GTO isn't really relevant. Maybe if you think about moving the steering wheel to the other side or the gear shift to the door. :popcorn:
Then apparently you have never ran a car at the strip. The people that complained feared the car would loose control when it broke traction because it is front wheel drive. However, there is a pretty little traction control button that prevents one from breaking traction and loosing control, hence the complainers were wrong and just didn't like change. I have driven a 8.35 second 1/4 mile, I know what it was that they feared.

People hear think there is a usability issue when there isn't. If one is paying attention to what one clicks, then there shouldn't be any clicking of the wrong buttons.

Now, I do not like the thought of driving a front wheel drive V8 and I don't like clicking a close button on the left side of the screen. These are a matter of preference, not usability.

uRock
March 13th, 2010, 12:58 AM
Personally, I think we should wait until the beta drops before complaining. The last several releases, the final art drop is usually in the beta.

Very true. That is partly why I reinstalled Karmic for a few weeks on my Netbook.

Emanuele_Z
March 13th, 2010, 01:02 AM
I honestly love Ubuntu, but if 10.04 comes out with btns on the left I'll choose or opensuse or fedora.

Ciao.

Ps. What have they smoked to pick such wrong decision?
PPs. Why leave at they are now? Simple, with left part of window you control your program, with right part you control the window itself...it's so obvious!!!!

ElSlunko
March 13th, 2010, 01:28 AM
I honestly love Ubuntu, but if 10.04 comes out with btns on the left I'll choose or opensuse or fedora.

Ciao.

Ps. What have they smoked to pick such wrong decision?
PPs. Why leave at they are now? Simple, with left part of window you control your program, with right part you control the window itself...it's so obvious!!!!

If you love it so much you could stay & simply changes the buttons to the right. There area a few tutorials out there & a python script to do it even.

Toadinator
March 13th, 2010, 01:31 AM
I honestly love Ubuntu, but if 10.04 comes out with btns on the left I'll choose or opensuse or fedora.

Switch to Linux Mint; OpenSUSE is pretty bad IMO, and with both you'll have to learn their own ways of doing things. Use Linux Mint; you can still use PPAs, it uses the Ubuntu repositories, you can keep the Ubuntu community, and it has a bunch of extra stuff by default (Pidgin, Thunderbird, the awesome mintMenu, APTonCD, CompizConfig, and optionally media codecs/flash installed by default). This is much more community-focused than Ubuntu and the releases are a lot more polished and "newbie-friendly" than Ubuntu from what I can tell. I'm installing it this weekend after trying it out in a VM.

http://www.linuxmint.com/

Toadinator
March 13th, 2010, 01:33 AM
If you love it so much you could stay & simply changes the buttons to the right. There area a few tutorials out there & a python script to do it even.

Google Chrome
Songbird
New users from Windows

It isn't about being "possible to change them", it's about Ubuntu being a decent Linux distro (which it is already, very very much so, but this change takes off a few points).

Toadinator
March 13th, 2010, 01:35 AM
Okay, someone with an Ubuntu membership posted this: Window Controls and Ubuntu Membership (http://voices.canonical.com/ronald.mccollam/2010/03/12/window-controls-and-ubuntu-membership/)

So we apparently have somewhat of a response, and it's along the "live with it, you can change it" variety. What ever happened to Ubuntu being a Linux distro for non-Geeks? Guess I'll have to show Mint to people instead now... ;)

Emanuele_Z
March 13th, 2010, 01:39 AM
Point is for users like me is quite easy to do.
I know something about developing software. For example the webcam of my notebook is mounted upside down so I rewrote the driver to flip the image in its native colorspace.
Not an issue.

But take for example my father.
He's 55+ yrs old, a psychologist, which uses Ubuntu to browse the web and to archive all the audio/video/text of its sessions with patients.
He doesn't know about scripts/configurations etc etc.

Am I wrong or Ubuntu was Linux for human beings?

Clearly this change tries to fix a non issue.
And this is bad.

Ciao.

Ps. On a side note this is similar to pidgin vs empathy. Do you know that a lot of users have connectivity issues with the latter? Why change the winning team?

23meg
March 13th, 2010, 01:50 AM
Okay, someone with an Ubuntu membership posted this: Window Controls and Ubuntu Membership (http://voices.canonical.com/ronald.mccollam/2010/03/12/window-controls-and-ubuntu-membership/)

So we apparently have somewhat of a response, and it's along the "live with it, you can change it" variety. What ever happened to Ubuntu being a Linux distro for non-Geeks? Guess I'll have to show Mint to people instead now... ;)

Ronald is part of the Ubuntu QA team at Canonical, and doesn't represent the user experience and design team who have implemented the branding and other UI changes, and what you read isn't an official statement of position from that team, from Canonical, or from Ubuntu members. It's Ronald's own opinion. There were conflicting opinions on the changes from other Ubuntu members and Canonical employees before, and they were statements of their own position as well.

Toadinator
March 13th, 2010, 02:08 AM
Ronald is part of the Ubuntu QA team at Canonical, and doesn't represent the user experience and design team who have implemented the branding and other UI changes, and what you read isn't an official statement of position from that team, from Canonical, or from Ubuntu members. It's Ronald's own opinion.

Hence the "somewhat of a response". Thanks for clarifying though since I had no idea where he was from (but from the looks of it he didn't seem to have a say in the button layout). I really hope we get another statement soon, and from someone that actually had a say in the original decision to change the button order.

In reply to that guy's post, it confirms my suspicions that the change is for change's sake (being different/unique in a way that tries to fix something that was never an issue for anyone).

talvik
March 13th, 2010, 03:13 AM
Why fix it if it's not broke?
AND IT IS AN LTS RELEASE!!!

I have never seen an atrocity like this one. It breaks the consistency of all Ubuntu releases and most others window managers. In fact it's the only thing I can expect to be the same in all distros.

Now I understand why this had to be "developed secretively".

There are plenty of reasons not to do this: http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/194
And I have yet to see one good rational, technical or even aesthetic argument.

That kind of hidden change, in the last minute of interface freeze, without announcement is a very UNPROFESSIONAL attitude.

:cry::cry::cry:

matcram
March 13th, 2010, 03:57 AM
“the only buzz in the blogosphere about Ubuntu is how ugly and horrible the new uncompleted designs are”

From my point of view this is not about the windows buttons only. But about the general look of this LTS (3 years people !!!)

loell
March 13th, 2010, 05:29 AM
I'm sure the design team is hearing us,

I see posts with blood pressures soaring high. ;)
I'd also like to see it on the right, so i'll just probably wait for the beta. :)

uRock
March 13th, 2010, 08:01 AM
I found this blog in Planet Ubuntu interesting. I think most people feel that the buttons are wrong. http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/194

Emanuele_Z
March 13th, 2010, 09:32 AM
I'm sure the design team is hearing us,

I see posts with blood pressures soaring high. ;)
I'd also like to see it on the right, so i'll just probably wait for the beta. :)

Personally I'm (totally?) ok with modifying the colour theme, removing application icon from top left, but please, please, pretty please don't try to fix something that works!
Leave the default position of minimize/maximize/close where they are now (and in this order)!

I hope you're right mate!

ElSlunko
March 13th, 2010, 10:48 AM
Funny thing happened today. I've been using the buttons to the left since the change went through & I was affected by the plymouth bug this morning. So I booted into windows to keep an eye on the progress on the bug and thought to myself "Hey the buttons are on the wrong side!" I shot for the left, ;P

ubfu
March 13th, 2010, 11:29 AM
I dont really mind left or right , the main thing is there's an option to choose left or right , or even center if possible.Able to modified or option to choose the maximize , minimize , close button at any position .This is what a linux can do.

plun
March 13th, 2010, 11:34 AM
Why fix it if it's not broke?
AND IT IS AN LTS RELEASE!!!

That kind of hidden change, in the last minute of interface freeze, without announcement is a very UNPROFESSIONAL attitude.

:cry::cry::cry:

Yup... Bulls eye....

Nouveau and this crap kills Ubuntu...](*,)

Just stupid !

thraxy
March 13th, 2010, 11:46 AM
My 2 cents:

Most of us come from Windows backgrounds and some of us have used Linux with right hand wm controls for years and years. Why the *blip* should we go mac now?????

This could be used as a small extra features that mac users could apply if needed, but no one really wants this. It's too bloody annoying.

I consider this a usability bug. Maybe we should file a bug report...

magneze
March 13th, 2010, 12:21 PM
Then apparently you have never ran a car at the strip. The people that complained feared the car would loose control when it broke traction because it is front wheel drive. However, there is a pretty little traction control button that prevents one from breaking traction and loosing control, hence the complainers were wrong and just didn't like change. I have driven a 8.35 second 1/4 mile, I know what it was that they feared.

People hear think there is a usability issue when there isn't. If one is paying attention to what one clicks, then there shouldn't be any clicking of the wrong buttons.

Now, I do not like the thought of driving a front wheel drive V8 and I don't like clicking a close button on the left side of the screen. These are a matter of preference, not usability.I disagree for the reasons I stated earlier. :P

aysiu
March 13th, 2010, 12:54 PM
Most of us come from Windows backgrounds and some of us have used Linux with right hand wm controls for years and years. Why the *blip* should we go mac now????? This isn't really Mac, actually.

Mac has a universal toolbar, so menu items are not necessarily next to the window buttons.

Mac has the close button on the far-left corner (not jammed somewhere in the middle).

Macs don't quit the application when you've closed the last window of the application.

Just moving it to the left side does not make it Mac.

magneze
March 13th, 2010, 12:59 PM
This thread is comically circular. :D

Keyper7
March 13th, 2010, 01:15 PM
This thread is comically circular. :D

It always happens when a thread becomes too long, there's not much one can do about it, really... I can call someone lazy for not reading 5 pages, but I can certainly understand that one did not read 50 pages.

sdowney717
March 13th, 2010, 02:18 PM
gconftool-2 --set "/apps/metacity/general/button_layout" --type string ":maximize,minimize,close"

In karmic there is a menu option on the left side, is this gone in lucid?

gconf key value is "menu:minimize,maximize,close"

Bill_MI
March 13th, 2010, 02:52 PM
In karmic there is a menu option on the left side, is this gone in lucid?

gconf key value is "menu:minimize,maximize,close"

It can be added. sdowney717 simply didn't include it.

ekerazha
March 13th, 2010, 05:05 PM
Just moving it to the left side does not make it Mac.

Yeah, you just take the useless side of Mac.

Toadinator
March 13th, 2010, 07:40 PM
I can gladly announce that I have finally switched from Ubuntu Karmic to the Ubuntu-compatible Linux Mint :D! And yes, this is on-topic.

The main reason I switched was because of the changes Ubuntu's making, actually. Replacing things that work with things that don't work as well, "going pro" (aka the new mac-inspired design), making a community instead of being a community, moving the logo and motto that made me want to use Ubuntu in the first place to the side ("lightware"? Linux for human beings not only makes more sense, but it shows that Ubuntu wants to be a community instead of making one), etc. Since I used a separate /home partition, switching was easy enough since I knew what I was doing, and I'm in the process of installing my old Ubuntu software now.

I sure hope that the new window button change doesn't drip down into Linux Mint 9, but it probably won't since this is mostly community-made :D! (except for the Ubuntu/Medibuntu repos, which is leeches from)

uRock
March 13th, 2010, 08:41 PM
I disagree for the reasons I stated earlier. :P

I disagree for the reasons I stated earlier.:D

gexi
March 13th, 2010, 08:48 PM
sorry for the ot comment, but this is starting to get funny ...

:popcorn: