PDA

View Full Version : Location of Window Buttons



Pages : 1 2 [3]

ElSlunko
March 13th, 2010, 08:50 PM
sorry for the ot comment, but this is starting to get funny ...

:popcorn:

Oh what big grin I'll have if they move them back to the right and apologize.

Emanuele_Z
March 13th, 2010, 09:02 PM
Oh what big grin I'll have if they move them back to the right and apologize.

Even if they don't apologize but do the right choice...

Cheers,

Half-Left
March 13th, 2010, 09:06 PM
Oh what big grin I'll have if they move them back to the right and apologize.

They most certainly don't have to because it's 'TESTING'.

Why are you people so up tight about them on the left? It must be a mental thing and you're thinking OS X, it's a copy, no other reason.

Honestly, people don't half make up some stuff about this and blow it all out of proportion.

There is no right choice, the only right choice is that people are used to it and think it is right.

ElSlunko
March 13th, 2010, 09:08 PM
Well perhaps apologize is too much. I meant it more as it pertains to the silence over the issue, but yeah they owe us nothing in a testing environment.

aysiu
March 13th, 2010, 09:33 PM
To all the people who don't think it's a big deal and like change for change sake, can you vote up this Brainstorm idea? It's a minor cosmetic change that might actually do some good (offer more vertical screen real estate in this age of increasingly more widescreen monitors):
Idea #14240: Configure Gnome with only one panel by default (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/14240/)

Those of us who care about usability will benefit from the change in default and those of you who don't care how the defaults change because "you can just change it back with a few clicks" can add back the second panel manually.

(Hoping at least something good can come out of this discussion.)

ronacc
March 13th, 2010, 09:57 PM
added my thumbs up .

Eromatic
March 13th, 2010, 11:43 PM
I feel that Ubuntu and Gnome overall ignore corner-click optimization the further they develop. The four corners of your screen; When you move your mouse pointer to those locations. What does this function provide for you when you trigger a mouse button?

I am currently running Hardy Heron. I run only one panel, which is located at the bottom of the screen. To the top right corner of the screen, when I have a window maximized, I can move my mouse to that position quickly to close out a window.

When Ubuntu moved the location of the window buttons over to the left, Ubuntu had failed to change the order of the buttons, that the close button function now no longer takes top priority.

Remember when there was a Volume Control applet that could be added to the panel? I have mine located to the very bottom right corner of the screen. This is because, and I guarantee that everyone had at least once ran into this problem, that the volume is just blasting too loud. In my case, I can just hurry down my mouse to the bottom right corner of the screen, and begin to mouse wheel the volume down.

As Ubuntu and Gnome progresses, this efficiency continues to disappear.

libihero
March 14th, 2010, 12:09 AM
i just thought i'd put my opinion in there, i dunno if its been said
i really dont think its a big deal and i actually like it more. i am a pc person, and i have always been used to it being on the right, but i do see the logic of the order and it being on the left
i dont think its a big deal at all for "newbies". i mean, lots of "newbies" with computers do just fine when they transition from windows to mac dont they? i think the buttons on the left are the least of the problems, they just need to smooth out some things in the already beautiful theme imo

Toadinator
March 14th, 2010, 12:34 AM
They most certainly don't have to because it's 'TESTING'.

Why are you people so up tight about them on the left? It must be a mental thing and you're thinking OS X, it's a copy, no other reason.

Honestly, people don't half make up some stuff about this and blow it all out of proportion.

There is no right choice, the only right choice is that people are used to it and think it is right.


i just thought i'd put my opinion in there, i dunno if its been said
i really dont think its a big deal and i actually like it more. i am a pc person, and i have always been used to it being on the right, but i do see the logic of the order and it being on the left
i dont think its a big deal at all for "newbies". i mean, lots of "newbies" with computers do just fine when they transition from windows to mac dont they? i think the buttons on the left are the least of the problems, they just need to smooth out some things in the already beautiful theme imo

...well, if you read through the 50+ pages on us arguing (I don't blame you for not doing so), you'd find quite a few reasons why the buttons being on the left is a pretty bad idea.

First, it breaks consistency with applications like Google Chrome or Songbird.

Second, it makes the left side of the window unreasonably crowded and people aiming for the menu bar might hit a button by accident.

Third, the reason Mac OS X has that global menu bar is because the buttons are on the left and they don't want people clicking the buttons by accident.

Fourth, they had no reason to change, and by the looks of it they're doing it just to be different, and in the process breaking the habits of everyone that has ever used a computer (they're in a different order than Mac, too).

Fifth, yes they're trying to be like Apple/Mac. I mean, monochrome icons, buttons on the left (for no reason), the background is changed to look eerily similar to (but worse than) the Mac OS Leopard background, the whole "pro/cool" look, etc. Heck their design team was using Macs exclusively. Would Microsoft pay Ubuntu-users to design artwork for them? No I don't think so, and Canonical shouldn't do the same. Look at Fedora/Linux Mint. Their artwork is beautiful and unique, and they never had to use a Mac.

Lets see... billionth time I've had to repeat this so far? You guys should get Auto Pager (Firefox add-on, puts the next page at the bottom so you can keep scrolling) ;).

Keyper7
March 14th, 2010, 01:20 AM
Just moving it to the left side does not make it Mac.

Yeah, you just take the useless side of Mac.

Okay, I usually dislike this kind of aggressive, non-productive comment, but I have to admit this made me laugh.

tekkidd
March 14th, 2010, 01:24 AM
i think they should stay on the right because moving them to the left will cause compatibility issues

Keyper7
March 14th, 2010, 01:30 AM
To all the people who don't think it's a big deal and like change for change sake, can you vote up this Brainstorm idea? It's a minor cosmetic change that might actually do some good (offer more vertical screen real estate in this age of increasingly more widescreen monitors):
Idea #14240: Configure Gnome with only one panel by default (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/14240/)

Those of us who care about usability will benefit from the change in default and those of you who don't care how the defaults change because "you can just change it back with a few clicks" can add back the second panel manually.

(Hoping at least something good can come out of this discussion.)

aysiu, I, myself, do not support this idea, but I have one suggestion: I think it might get more votes if someone posts a solution specifying a concrete, satisfactory way of repositioning the taskbar, show desktop applet and trash applet. Right now it's kinda vague, and probably scaring potential voters because of that.

Half-Left
March 14th, 2010, 01:41 AM
...well, if you read through the 50+ pages on us arguing (I don't blame you for not doing so), you'd find quite a few reasons why the buttons being on the left is a pretty bad idea.

First, it breaks consistency with applications like Google Chrome or Songbird.

Second, it makes the left side of the window unreasonably crowded and people aiming for the menu bar might hit a button by accident.

Third, the reason Mac OS X has that global menu bar is because the buttons are on the left and they don't want people clicking the buttons by accident.

Fourth, they had no reason to change, and by the looks of it they're doing it just to be different, and in the process breaking the habits of everyone that has ever used a computer (they're in a different order than Mac, too).

Fifth, yes they're trying to be like Apple/Mac. I mean, monochrome icons, buttons on the left (for no reason), the background is changed to look eerily similar to (but worse than) the Mac OS Leopard background, the whole "pro/cool" look, etc. Heck their design team was using Macs exclusively. Would Microsoft pay Ubuntu-users to design artwork for them? No I don't think so, and Canonical shouldn't do the same. Look at Fedora/Linux Mint. Their artwork is beautiful and unique, and they never had to use a Mac.

Lets see... billionth time I've had to repeat this so far? You guys should get Auto Pager (Firefox add-on, puts the next page at the bottom so you can keep scrolling) ;).

First, Google Chrome and Songbird are irrelevant and they're both cross-platform applications, not gnome applications, nether are they default.

Second, Well that happens on the right hand side as well.

Third, In OS X can you click the Apple logo by mistake, since that's about the same target area. Who actually has?

Fourth, You have no proof of that, it's just assumption.

Fifth, What's wrong with that then? People theme their desktop like OS X all the time, why, ask yourself why?. There is nothing wrong with using OS X as inspiration, since gnome/Ubuntu has it's many great differences anyway.

Let me tell you. Who cares about your add-ons? Should we not change the desktop because you like your add-ons don't fit? NO!

ElSlunko
March 14th, 2010, 01:52 AM
It comes down to taste and design philosophy. Apple has really taken the minimalistic approach to industry design & it has paid off ten fold. I think many people like this approach as evident by a bevy of contemporary product design. This approach has been around for ages (Look up Dieter Rams), apple was just the first to bring it to a desktop.


Edit :

http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0204/ram/index.html

Keyper7
March 14th, 2010, 01:57 AM
Second, Well that happens on the right hand side as well.

Wait, what?

There are no menu items on the right unless the window has a very small width.

Merk42
March 14th, 2010, 01:59 AM
First, Google Chrome and Songbird are irrelevant and they're both cross-platform applications, not gnome applications, nether are they default.Why does their being 3rd party cross platform make them irrelevant? They know enough to put buttons on the left for their OS X versions. So now they'd need to make 2 for Linux? One on the left in that order for Ubuntu and other for every another distro?

Second, Well that happens on the right hand side as well.Very very rarely, the application's menu bar would have to have enough options to span all the way to the right of the window.

Third, In OS X can you click the Apple logo by mistake, since that's about the same target area. Who actually has?You have no proof that they haven't... also, it's not as destructive as accidentally closing the program.

Fourth, You have no proof of that, it's just assumption.Over a week later, and they have yet to provide a reason

Fifth, What's wrong with that then? People theme their desktop like OS X all the time, why, ask yourself why?. There is nothing wrong with using OS X as inspiration, since gnome/Ubuntu has it's many great differences anyway.Because Ubuntu should have its own identity. Copying from another OS (see office icons) just makes the whole thing seem amateurish.

Let me tell you. Who cares about your add-ons? Should we not change the desktop because you like your add-ons don't fit? NO!If you actually bothered to look up the add-on before getting hostile you'd see it has to do with navigating this forum, not with the theme

ElSlunko
March 14th, 2010, 02:04 AM
I must've missed that office icon update. I don't see anything that looks like the OSX icons.

fab.head
March 14th, 2010, 02:05 AM
First, it breaks consistency with applications like Google Chrome or Songbird.
Chrome and Chromium can be set to use both the GTK+ theme and the system title bar and border, so this is not really an issue.

Re: Songbird... well, I can live with it (or the Songbird devs can update it if need be)


Second, it makes the left side of the window unreasonably crowded and people aiming for the menu bar might hit a button by accident.
The left hand side of the title bar hosts the menu button in Karmic: I've never hit it by mistake and I bet that most other gnome users haven't either.


Third, the reason Mac OS X has that global menu bar is because the buttons are on the left and they don't want people clicking the buttons by accident.
The most "dangerous" button is the "close" button. Therefore it could make sense to place only this button far away from all other controls (including maximise and minimise).
They could keep the maximise/minimise buttons to the left, move the close button to the right hand corner and centre the window title in order to balance the overall look (a sort of reverse version of the old MacOS9 layout)
I've been trying this solution for the last few days and honestly speaking it's not that bad: there is absolutely no way I can click "close" by mistake as this button is completely isolated from any other button/menu.


Fourth, they had no reason to change, and by the looks of it they're doing it just to be different, and in the process breaking the habits of everyone that has ever used a computer (they're in a different order than Mac, too).
"Breaking the the habits" is not necessarily a big issue. What did Apple do when they switched from MacOS9 to MacOSX ? They changed the layout of the titlebar buttons and guess what? Apple users/fans didn't start any revolution because of this.


Fifth, yes they're trying to be like Apple/Mac. I mean, monochrome icons, buttons on the left (for no reason), the background is changed to look eerily similar to (but worse than) the Mac OS Leopard background, the whole "pro/cool" look, etc.
It's the old song and dance of who's copying who: it seems that nowadays everyone copies something from the others (and this applies to the various Linux/DE's, Windows and MacOS) - so where's the scandal here?


Heck their design team was using Macs exclusively. Would Microsoft pay Ubuntu-users to design artwork for them? No I don't think so, and Canonical shouldn't do the same. Look at Fedora/Linux Mint. Their artwork is beautiful and unique, and they never had to use a Mac.
So what? As long as the final result is good and can then be used in Ubuntu, their design team is free to use whatever they want, even an old Commodore64, a chainsaw or KitchenAid if that helps.


Lets see... billionth time I've had to repeat this so far? You guys should get Auto Pager
And you should get a life, mate.
Have you ever thought that it could well be that some of us have seen all the "billions" of posts which you mention and have decided to skip them because we simply disagree with you?

ElSlunko
March 14th, 2010, 02:07 AM
How come no one looked up my link :(

dbowlin17
March 14th, 2010, 02:09 AM
SO, I installed Lucid Lynx Alpha 3 today, and my buttons are still in the right hand corner... I don't have any of the new themes that people talk about either... nothing new like that... so for me they are still on the right...

Toadinator
March 14th, 2010, 02:10 AM
First, Google Chrome and Songbird are irrelevant and they're both cross-platform applications, not gnome applications, nether are they default.

Try explaining to the people that like Chrome, Songbird, those Wine windows in virtual desktops, and all of those other programs that don't use the window manager all about how Ubuntu is trying to be different and in effect breaking consistency. Chrome is more popular on Linux than it is on other platforms, partially because of Chromium.


Second, Well that happens on the right hand side as well.

...No it doesn't? Show me proof that most applications have the top right corner more or equally cluttered when compared to the left side, which usually has a menu bar, and I'll believe you.


Third, In OS X can you click the Apple logo by mistake, since that's about the same target area. Who actually has?

But only if a window's maximized (or "zoomed", as it's apparently called there). Most windows aren't maximized and aren't designed to be, so it isn't nearly as much of a problem as you would think. Having them on the right side and maximizing the program brings the same issue on Ubuntu as well. So if you look at it, there's two things you can accidentally click if it's on the left, but only one if it's on the right. Also, I believe some people in this thread said they accidentally clicked things by mistake because of the new layout.


Fourth, You have no proof of that, it's just assumption.

And your proof that I don't have any proof about people having to break their habits is... where? Look at this thread. People are complaining all over about how it breaks their habits. What about the "Facebook moms" out there? One person in this thread even said that someone he knew tried lucid and was staring at the top-right corner wondering where the buttons went; it's that instinctive to some people. Forcing people to re-learn their habits for little reason (and without understanding why the buttons are on the left on Mac in the first place) is rather pointless if you ask almost everyone in this thread.


Fifth, What's wrong with that then? People theme their desktop like OS X all the time, why, ask yourself why?. There is nothing wrong with using OS X as inspiration, since gnome/Ubuntu has it's many great differences anyway.

I wasn't talking about people theming their desktop like another operating system. If that's what they like, good for them. I was talking about how strange it is for them to hire mac users to design a Linux-based operating system that supposedly cares about the use and spread of free software. Mac/Photoshop isn't free and they didn't need to use it at all. There's so much artwork done by the community they could have used, or they could have at least hired people that used free software. Let me say it again: why would Microsoft hire Ubuntu-users to design Windows? They wouldn't. And the influence these Mac users are carrying over is almost plagiarism (if you look earlier in this thread, you'll see that the OpenOffice Document icons were practically taken right from Mac).


Let me tell you. Who cares about your add-ons? Should we not change the desktop because you like your add-ons don't fit? NO!

Did I ever say this add-on didn't work with Lucid? No. Did I ever say that was the reason I was complaining? No. Did you bother to use correct grammar in that last sentence? No. I suggested a Firefox add-on to help people read the 50 plus pages this thread is spanning. It isn't my add-on, and it's someone else's; I just happen to use it. Isn't recommending things to each other and helping each other out from the goodness of our hearts what a community is supposed to do?

Merk42
March 14th, 2010, 02:13 AM
i must've missed that office icon update. I don't see anything that looks like the osx icons.

off topic post ahead
I'll use Word for example:

Word (Windows)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bb/Microsoft_Word_2010_Icon.svg/64px-Microsoft_Word_2010_Icon.svg.png

Word (Mac)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/Word_Mac_2008_icon.png/64px-Word_Mac_2008_icon.png
.doc file (Ubuntu Lucid Alpha 3)
150027

End off topic post

Half-Left
March 14th, 2010, 02:13 AM
In the end it's all assumption and what ifs' and buts. I don't see any use cases at all.

I bet if Canonical made the global menu default, people would love it, but oh wait, it's a massive change and people 'will' get confused and make mistakes, just like with this issue.

ElSlunko
March 14th, 2010, 02:19 AM
@Merk Ohh! I was looking at the program icons. Yeah that's pretty bad ripoff.

Again, as far as some design choices go it has to do with a general design philosophy that apple just happens to use. However, the button location doesn't have much to do with that design principal since the window balance isn't affected much aesthetically, though that right side sure looks purdy all nice and empty.

Madspyman
March 14th, 2010, 02:23 AM
off topic post ahead
I'll use Word for example:

Word (Windows)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bb/Microsoft_Word_2010_Icon.svg/64px-Microsoft_Word_2010_Icon.svg.png

Word (Mac)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/Word_Mac_2008_icon.png/64px-Word_Mac_2008_icon.png
.doc file (Ubuntu Lucid Alpha 3)
150027

End off topic post

Just noticed that mac .doc file icon, they're probably going to have to change it, it's a copywritten logo, isn't it?

Merk42
March 14th, 2010, 02:26 AM
Just noticed that mac .doc file icon, they're probably going to have to change it, it's a copywritten logo, isn't it?

I hope so.

I did file a bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/humanity-icon-theme/+bug/537358) and even suggested what they should do and even did rough mockups for it.

Toadinator
March 14th, 2010, 02:36 AM
And you should get a life, mate.
Have you ever thought that it could well be that some of us have seen all the "billions" of posts which you mention and have decided to skip them because we simply disagree with you?

Ooh! Nice comeback.

Don't the facts that Ubuntu's changing something that has worked for years on purpose because they're trying to be different, they did not try to understand why the buttons have been where they are by default, and that they barely commented on the issue bother you at all?

Maybe the reason I'm saying these things over and over is because I haven't heard any convincing counter-arguments. "Who cares", "get used to it", "why are you hating on the new design", "what do you know", and "we can always ever so technically change it" aren't good counter-arguments at all (I'm not talking about just you, I'm talking about everyone that disagrees, because this is what they said in a nutshell). Ubuntu is supposed to be "Linux for Human Beings", isn't it? At least it used to be, until they threw it out the window and "went pro".

Regardless, we can't have these changes just because we can because they break existing functionality that people are very used to and it's not worth it. Ubuntu "just works", and it has a reputation for being so straightforward and simple compared to something like Windows. This isn't making using Ubuntu any easier, and forcing people to use gconf-editor or some 3rd-party tool just to change the button order to something that makes more sense isn't a good idea at all. What do you have to say about this?

fab.head
March 14th, 2010, 03:47 AM
they did not try to understand why the buttons have been where they are by default
Maybe those buttons are there because gnome (and other DE's) copied that layout from Windows 95?


that they barely commented on the issue bother you at all?
Maybe because it's still an alpha release and they are still experimenting? It could also be that they are testing the reaction of the community.


Maybe the reason I'm saying these things over and over is because I haven't heard any convincing counter-arguments.
Oh well, every time Canonical releases a new version of Ubuntu, most of the users ask for a brand new look and feel. Now that Canonical are experimenting something different (other than just a new titlebar colour or fancy background) they just hear complaints which translate into "Please revert to the old Win95-style titlebar" instead of receiving constructive suggestions for something at least a wee bit more innovative or useful.


"Who cares", "get used to it", "why are you hating on the new design", "what do you know", and "we can always ever so technically change it" aren't good counter-arguments at all (I'm not talking about just you, I'm talking about everyone that disagrees, because this is what they said in a nutshell).
You are putting everyone who disagrees with you in the same pot, aren't you? As I said, there are people who would like the Win layout back at any cost and there are also people who could swallow anything as long as it's "different". But there are also other people who disagree with the previous two groups and would like to experiment/propose other layouts which (at least for them) make perfect sense.


Ubuntu is supposed to be "Linux for Human Beings", isn't it? At least it used to be, until they threw it out the window and "went pro".
They tried to change the layout of 3 buttons and you say that they "threw it out the window". Either you are being a bit too melodramatic or you are simply stuck in the mud and can't accept changes (or can't propose new ways of doing things).


Regardless, we can't have these changes just because we can because they break existing functionality that people are very used to and it's not worth it.
Are you assuming that people are all dumb and cannot use something slightly different from Windows? If this is the case they would never switch to any other OS (including Linux and MacOS X) as each OS/DE has different functionalities.
If you refer to Chrome/Chromium, please see the attached Chromium screenshot: as you can see it can use the the GTK+ theme and titlebar.


Ubuntu "just works", and it has a reputation for being so straightforward and simple compared to something like Windows.
This is a bit of a contradiction as far as the titlebar buttons are concerned. Up until Karmic the titelbar button layout had been copied straight from Windows.


This isn't making using Ubuntu any easier, and forcing people to use gconf-editor or some 3rd-party tool just to change the button order to something that makes more sense isn't a good idea at all. What do you have to say about this?
Have you proposed anything constructive about this?
For example you could have asked Canonical to add a feature which lets you customise the button layout directly from "Appearence" (so that you would not be required to download any 3rd party app or fiddle with gconf).

Just criticising isn't enough, mate.
You can also try to propose something new.
I (and others) for instance proposed a layout which completely isolates the "close" button (see the attached screenshots) so that it gets almost impossible to click it by mistake. If you move all 3 buttons to the same side (it doesn't matter whether they are all 3 on the left or on the right hand side), there is always a remote chance that you hit "close" when you try to minimise/maximise the window.

Toadinator
March 14th, 2010, 05:10 AM
In response to the previous post without quoting every word to use less space:

I don't see what's wrong with changing the layout. I don't see what's wrong with experimenting. I don't see what's wrong with trying to be different. The problem remains though that they haven't exactly been transparent with their decisions. Also, when you say that they're testing the community's reaction, that only makes my point make more sense: I'm complaining about it so they'll change it to something that makes more sense. Whether or not it goes back to the order it was before, it doesn't matter, as long as it makes more sense than the seemingly random (at least without an explanation) placement they have now. Complaining about it and complimenting it is exactly what they want: feedback. I'm giving them feedback from my perspective, which seems to agree with quite a few people's perspectives.

About Chrome, I know you can do that. I said at least a couple times that I knew. But we shouldn't have to dig through the settings of it just so it can fit in with the rest of our desktop, right? I'd believe the Ubuntu design team about their new button order if they just released their data about it instead of just saying they thought about it for a while.

By the way, why are you stressing "Windows 95" so much? What's wrong with their style? Maybe it's so popular because it works and we never had to change it since then. Cars now are still laid out similarly to how they have been years and years ago, way before windows 95. Is that bad? Quite the contrary: we're still making cars similarly to how we always have because that's what works the best so far, and it's what people are most used to. If someone was willing to try something new, sure they could maybe try a car with a different layout, right? But that car wouldn't exactly get more customers, and some things wouldn't be compatible with the layout.

By the way, I'm all for an easy GUI program to change the button order (in fact that was one of my complaints), and other people are already working on it so hopefully it's put in sooner or later.

d5j9
March 14th, 2010, 05:36 AM
Maybe because it's still an alpha release and they are still experimenting?


This is after the UI freeze (March 4) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LucidReleaseSchedule

jpkotta
March 14th, 2010, 06:55 AM
I guess I don't care, as far as themes go. It's one of those arbitrary things that doesn't matter until you have one convention that people are used to, and then you should just stick with that. The closest we have to a convention is how Windows does it, on the right, with a menu button on the left. OS X does it differently, but it has fewer users, so it doesn't make as much sense to choose its arbitrary convention over Windows'.

Personally, I only have two buttons: the close button and the menu button, just like Windows. I really don't need any, because I have various mouse bindings on the title bar. Fitt's law suggests that this is better than buttons; unfortunately it's less obvious than buttons.

patknox
March 14th, 2010, 09:17 AM
over 75% of the voters in this poll chose buttons on the right. since it's past the UI freeze, will the overwhelming opinion of the user community be ignored? (i'm assuming this poll mimics the opinions of the user community)

Kazade
March 14th, 2010, 09:22 AM
over 75% of the voters in this poll chose buttons on the right. since it's past the UI freeze, will the overwhelming opinion of the user community be ignored?

We don't know that for sure... there have been quite a few UI changes since UI freeze (we just got a new load of icons for example). Also, Ivanka said on the Ayatana mailing list that they still haven't decided whether to keep it or not.

Personally, I think if they do keep it, they will taint an otherwise perfect release - I don't believe that most of the thread posts, blogs and articles won't latch on to this on launch day.

EDIT: regarding the poll mimicking the community. That's not totally true, it likely mimics the testing community, however, OMG Ubuntu (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/) is more user-orientated (rather than developer orientated) and the poll there (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/poll-do-you-want-ubuntu-window-controls.html) says 79% for the right hand side. I think it's a fair to say that the majority of the community are against this change (based on the fact there are no polls showing the contrary).

Didius Falco
March 14th, 2010, 10:05 AM
To all the people who don't think it's a big deal and like change for change sake, can you vote up this Brainstorm idea?

Gave it my vote. This is the very first thing I do with new installs of Ubuntu.

aysiu
March 14th, 2010, 10:28 AM
Gave it my vote. This is the very first thing I do with new installs of Ubuntu.
Thank you. I've also taken the suggestion to include a screenshot.

fab.head
March 14th, 2010, 11:55 AM
I'm complaining about it so they'll change it to something that makes more sense.
And this is fine. The point in my first reply to you was that your tone was a little bit patronising witht that "Lets see... billionth time I've had to repeat this so far?", wasn't it? ;)

Regarding Chrome and Songbird, we are talking about a couple applications out of some thousands. Wouldn't it be easier to ask their developers to adjust the apps to automatically adopt the GTK+ theme and titlebar? They look out of place in any case, even under Karmic where all buttons are on the right hand side.


By the way, why are you stressing "Windows 95" so much? What's wrong with their style? Maybe it's so popular because it works and we never had to change it since then.
I'm stressing "Win95" simply because you clearly said that "Ubuntu "just works", and it has a reputation for being so straightforward and simple compared to something like Windows". Well, the buttons layout in Karmic is exactly the same as in Wind95 and newer Windows versions.
If you say that the buttons on the left hand side aren't good as you might click "close" when aiming at another control, they aren't good either all on the right hand side (and this is the Win95 style) as you could accidentally hit "close" when aiming at the maximise/minimise buttons.

I'm also stressing "Win95" and not just "Windows" as previous Windows versions had a different layout. E.g. Win3.1 had the close button on the left, the maximise/minimise buttons on the right and the tile centred (similarly to the MacOS 9 layout)


Quite the contrary: we're still making cars similarly to how we always have because that's what works the best so far, and it's what people are most used to. If someone was willing to try something new, sure they could maybe try a car with a different layout, right? But that car wouldn't exactly get more customers, and some things wouldn't be compatible with the layout.
I don't really agree with this statement. Unfortunatley we are "still" making cars the old way as are we are "slaves" to the oil companies... but this is OT.

Oh, wait: talking about cars with a different layout, have you ever been to the UK, Ireland, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, etc? There you will see a different layout: the steering weel is on the right side of the cockpit and so are the other controls ;)


the poll there says 79% for the right hand side. I think it's a fair to say that the majority of the community are against this change (based on the fact there are no polls showing the contrary).
Unfortunatley, the OMG poll gives only 2 options: move all buttons to the left OR move all buttons to the right. It doesn't give an option to vote for an alternative layout (and then let the users explain what layout they would like to see implemented).

forcecore
March 14th, 2010, 01:06 PM
I sent this option to directly Canonical too, lets see if that option appears on System>Preferences (if they plan to keep buttons on left)

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

NCLI
March 14th, 2010, 01:21 PM
I don't really mind the buttons being on the left, but I think we all will once Gnome-Shell comes around. I know I've already entered the overview many times while playing around with the shell in Lucid.

This is probably the biggest reason why the buttons should stay on the right, though they can keep the current order.

keithpeter
March 14th, 2010, 01:30 PM
http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/change-metacity-button-location-in-ubuntu/

I assume we will always have choices? :twisted:

vishalrao
March 14th, 2010, 04:24 PM
apparently a new "ubuntu tweak" release includes better changing-window button/control placement support?

forcecore
March 14th, 2010, 04:26 PM
http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/change-metacity-button-location-in-ubuntu/

I assume we will always have choices? :twisted:

Tried, still 10x easier to use that python GUI script...

Atermoon
March 14th, 2010, 04:38 PM
apparently a new "ubuntu tweak" release includes better changing-window button/control placement support?

It does, although it also added the menu button and I couldn't find a way to freaking remove it so I had to use gconf-editor again. On the other hand, I don't think there are many people who hate the menu button as much as I do so it shouldn't be a big problem.

Toadinator
March 14th, 2010, 09:02 PM
Oh, wait: talking about cars with a different layout, have you ever been to the UK, Ireland, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, etc? There you will see a different layout: the steering weel is on the right side of the cockpit and so are the other controls ;)

I know that. Problem is though that it's as if they're doing this:


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? ;)

Moving them to one side or the other, regardless of the "crowded-ness factor" (which is important for OCD people like me :P), doesn't matter too much and I agree mostly with layouts that separate the close button from the other two. Problem is, regardless of the benefits of using these layouts, we can't force people to use it [not providing an easy, officially supported way of switching (and gconf-editor doesn't count)]. Making applications that assume the default Gnome button order comply with Ubuntu's decisions seems unprofessional, doesn't it? I'm already seeing lots of "Lucid-only themes" that people using a different button order than the agreed-upon defaults can't use without changing their button order/location. That's just not fair, and rather inconsistent if you ask me.

colobix
March 15th, 2010, 12:40 AM
They should let us be able to put the buttons where ever we want to.

howefield
March 15th, 2010, 12:41 AM
They should let us be able to put the buttons where ever we want to.

Fortunately, they do.

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 12:55 AM
Fortunately, they do.

Yes they do, but it's not the easiest thing to do, hence why people like myself think it should be easier to change.

howefield
March 15th, 2010, 01:01 AM
Yes they do, but it's not the easiest thing to do, hence why people like myself think it should be easier to change.

I don't particularly disagree with you that it should be easier, however colobix wants to be able to change it, and change it he can. :D

ekerazha
March 15th, 2010, 12:03 PM
Okay, I usually dislike this kind of aggressive, non-productive comment, but I have to admit this made me laugh.

Eh eh really, this choice is so senseless that the word "wrong" (and nothing else) would already be constructive.

PenguinInside
March 15th, 2010, 12:51 PM
Maybe because it's still an alpha release and they are still experimenting? It could also be that they are testing the reaction of the community.

If they are testing the reaction of the community, the community has a right to speak, right?



Oh well, every time Canonical releases a new version of Ubuntu, most of the users ask for a brand new look and feel. Now that Canonical are experimenting something different (other than just a new titlebar colour or fancy background) they just hear complaints which translate into "Please revert to the old Win95-style titlebar" instead of receiving constructive suggestions for something at least a wee bit more innovative or useful.

Was there really a poll which asked people if they want a new look and feel in every single release every 6 months? Anyway, a new look is one thing, but a new feel is another. People have definitely given detailed reasons why the new feel is not good for Ubuntu, just read through the thread.



You are putting everyone who disagrees with you in the same pot, aren't you? As I said, there are people who would like the Win layout back at any cost and there are also people who could swallow anything as long as it's "different". But there are also other people who disagree with the previous two groups and would like to experiment/propose other layouts which (at least for them) make perfect sense.

IMHO, the default theme is not the place for hiphop experimentation. Linux is great in that it allows for customizing your environment, but it should be an option as it has always been. The default should be geared toward the majority of normal (not 'leet) users.



They tried to change the layout of 3 buttons and you say that they "threw it out the window". Either you are being a bit too melodramatic or you are simply stuck in the mud and can't accept changes (or can't propose new ways of doing things).

The point is
-making changes to accepted standards which have been in place for half a decade without any community involvement
-making changes which not even all developers agree on
-the arrogance of commenting "moved buttons correctly to left", as if a single dev gets to decide what is correct and what's not
-the arrogance of thinking all previous developers and users have just been stupid up until now
-making UI changes just before a UI freeze
-making "feel" changes without any vetting or community involvement for an LTS
-and if anyone should complain, saying "you can change with gconf"

People are upset because they don't want this to be the default operating procedure for other changes in Ubuntu.



Are you assuming that people are all dumb and cannot use something slightly different from Windows? If this is the case they would never switch to any other OS (including Linux and MacOS X) as each OS/DE has different functionalities.

Lemme ask you this: Would it be a good idea to switch the default keyboard layout to Dvorak? Yes it's "better" (you can get a higher WPM once you learn it). But why should people be forced to change? If anyone like alternative layouts, they should be able to choose those.

But don't make arbitrary changes and stigmatize people for people stick-in-the-muds.



This is a bit of a contradiction as far as the titlebar buttons are concerned. Up until Karmic the titelbar button layout had been copied straight from Windows.

I don't quite know if that is the case because in Windows 3.x there was not close button, and I think (AFAIK) GNOME/KDE did.



Have you proposed anything constructive about this?
For example you could have asked Canonical to add a feature which lets you customise the button layout directly from "Appearence" (so that you would not be required to download any 3rd party app or fiddle with gconf).

Maybe this poster didn't but other have. Anyway, the default should be what we have been using for a half-decade, and what most people want, and what most potential users will be used to.



Just criticising isn't enough, mate.
You can also try to propose something new.
I (and others) for instance proposed a layout which completely isolates the "close" button (see the attached screenshots) so that it gets almost impossible to click it by mistake. If you move all 3 buttons to the same side (it doesn't matter whether they are all 3 on the left or on the right hand side), there is always a remote chance that you hit "close" when you try to minimise/maximise the window.

I agree it would be good to have a little separation between the close button and the min/max. I think it should definitely remain in the rightmost corner, though.

When teaching a new user (like a child), it's very easy to say "go up, up, up, then right, right, right, and click the X." It's very hard to say "go the upper left corner, and click the X, no watch out for the File menu, not the Edit menu, not the delete button in the toolbar which also has an X icon".

talvik
March 15th, 2010, 02:07 PM
Will somebody at least step up and justify this change?

One day before interface freeze, no comments, all closed developed. That is a slap in the face of the Ubuntu community.

That is a very unprofessional attitude by Canonical.

ElSlunko
March 15th, 2010, 03:23 PM
Will somebody at least step up and justify this change?

One day before interface freeze, no comments, all closed developed. That is a slap in the face of the Ubuntu community.

That is a very unprofessional attitude by Canonical.

There have been comments made on various blogs.

Edit : Heres' one

http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281

Merk42
March 15th, 2010, 03:31 PM
There have been comments made on various blogs.

Edit : Heres' one

http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281

Is one of the comments on that blog someone from Canonical explaining the change? The blog itself doesn't explain the change (yet people keep referencing it like it does)

Keyper7
March 15th, 2010, 03:31 PM
There have been comments made on various blogs.

Edit : Heres' one

http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281

It's the only one so far from a official design team member, and does not offer any kind of official statement on the reasoning behind the change. At most, one or other (questionable and vague) clue. And shows that the decision is not an unanimity not even among the design team itself, as Ivanka disagrees with it.

All other Ubuntu developers who blogged about it are not members of the design team and were just guessing the reasons. Their posts cannot be considered official justifications, because they know as much as anyone else.

ElSlunko
March 15th, 2010, 03:34 PM
"After the internal debate and analysis (which went something like the picture below) we decided to put this version in the theme and to use it. I have had it running on my machine with the buttons in this order since before the Portland sprint (first week of February?) and I am quite used to it.



Is it better or worse?

It is quite hard to tell. The theme has been in the alpha since Friday. Now that you have had a chance to use it what do you think?"

Keyper7
March 15th, 2010, 03:38 PM
"After the internal debate and analysis (which went something like the picture below) we decided to put this version in the theme and to use it. I have had it running on my machine with the buttons in this order since before the Portland sprint (first week of February?) and I am quite used to it.

Is it better or worse?

It is quite hard to tell. The theme has been in the alpha since Friday. Now that you have had a chance to use it what do you think?"

Saying that reasons exist is not enough. You have to tell which reasons they are.

Person 1: "We will punch you in the face."

You: "Why?"

Person 1: "After internal debate and analysis, we decided that this will bring benefit to everyone."

Person 2: "Also, we simulated punching you in the face several times since last month. It felt right."

Not exactly an explanation that would satisfy you, is it? Even "your face is ugly" is more acceptable, because it's at least something.

uRock
March 15th, 2010, 03:47 PM
Saying that reasons exist is not enough. You have to tell which reasons they are.

Person 1: "We will punch you in the face."

You: "Why?"

Person 1: "After internal debate and analysis, we decided that this will bring benefit to everyone."

Person 2: "Also, we simulated punching you in the face several times since last month. It felt right."

Not exactly an explanation that would satisfy you, is it?
Then person 3 goes to take off his jacket in preparation for the punch in the face and the other two realize he is armed and runs away.

This probably isn't the best examples for this forum.

Half-Left
March 15th, 2010, 03:49 PM
Will somebody at least step up and justify this change?

One day before interface freeze, no comments, all closed developed. That is a slap in the face of the Ubuntu community.

That is a very unprofessional attitude by Canonical.

Well, going by that comment, Canonical cannot change everything without asking the Ubuntu community.

I don't see any professional UI designers stepping up here, it's all just opinion about their choices.

Some things people will like, some things you don't and that's how life is.

Keyper7
March 15th, 2010, 03:51 PM
Then person 3 goes to take off his jacket in preparation for the punch in the face and the other two realize he is armed and runs away.

...without telling the reason.

Yep, that's pretty much it.

Kazade
March 15th, 2010, 04:23 PM
Well, going by that comment, Canonical cannot change everything without asking the Ubuntu community.

I don't see any professional UI designers stepping up here, it's all just opinion about their choices.

Some things people will like, some things you don't and that's how life is.

Sigh, I think this thread needs to die now because it's been round in circles so many times I'm dizzy...

All other changes like this that have affected users have always been described in advance on the wiki, with reasoning. This change should have followed the same process, it didn't. It was dropped on a laps at the last minute before UI freeze.

Don't forget *WE* (as in the users, developers and testers) are the majority or people that build Ubuntu, Canonical is a sponsor and owner of the trademarks etc., they provide the infrastructure that allows us to build, it's a symbiotic relationship. You can't have one party doing what it likes without consulting the other as it destroys that partnership (between Canonical and the Community), it destroys trust, and it's bloody annoying. We deserve at least some reasoning behind the change.

Imagine this, you and a bunch of friends decide to build a go kart but your materials suck. Then one of your friends pulls out a wad of cash and says, "Here, use this, the only catch is I'd like to have some say about how it looks".

All together you build an amazing go kart, it looks great and the controls are just right. You wake up on race day to find the friend who gave you money has not only resprayed it, but reversed the steering wheel. You ask them, "Why did you do that?" but they ignore you and walk away. You stand with your go kart, unable to drive it as well as before, and uncertain about how you are going to be perceived on the track - and you don't have a clue why.

That's pretty much the situation we are in now (IMO).

Half-Left
March 15th, 2010, 04:38 PM
Sigh, I think this thread needs to die now because it's been round in circles so many times I'm dizzy...

All other changes like this that have affected users have always been described in advance on the wiki, with reasoning. This change should have followed the same process, it didn't. It was dropped on a laps at the last minute before UI freeze.

Don't forget *WE* (as in the users, developers and testers) are the majority or people that build Ubuntu, Canonical is a sponsor and owner of the trademarks etc., they provide the infrastructure that allows us to build, it's a symbiotic relationship. You can't have one party doing what it likes without consulting the other as it destroys that partnership (between Canonical and the Community), it destroys trust, and it's bloody annoying. We deserve at least some reasoning behind the change.

Imagine this, you and a bunch of friends decide to build a go kart but your materials suck. Then one of your friends pulls out a wad of cash and says, "Here, use this, the only catch is I'd like to have some say about how it looks".

All together you build an amazing go kart, it looks great and the controls are just right. You wake up on race day to find the friend who gave you money has not only resprayed it, but reversed the steering wheel. You ask them, "Why did you do that?" but they ignore you and walk away. You stand with your go kart, unable to drive it as well as before, and uncertain about how you are going to be perceived on the track - and you don't have a clue why.

That's pretty much the situation we are in now (IMO).

A good default is hard to get right and asking people what they want can complicate things even more. Canonical pay UI designers and artists to do this and the end result may not be to everyones liking.

The problem is, the colour pallet Canonical have picked is hard to get right and make look slick. Apple and Microsoft use blue and a silverly grey, which gives a nice slick look. I understand where they're coming from when using such colours, but you have to be really careful, since the brown and orange can and will turn people off.

I myself, wouldn't have used such a harsh colour pallet but ultimately it does get peoples attention(different doesn't mean good) and that maybe a form of marketing on their part.

Kazade
March 15th, 2010, 04:45 PM
A good default is hard to get right and asking people what they want can complicate things even more. Canonical pay UI designers and artists to do this and the end result may not be to everyones liking.

It's a certainty that any change won't be to everyones liking but any change should be at least rationalised. Change is bad unless there is a good reason for doing it. Where are the reasons?

There was a brilliant email the other day to the Ayatana mailing list from a guy who obviously was a usability guy. He asked the designers for their thinking, what their reasoning was for the change in button position, what were the problems they were trying to solve. There has been no reply.

sv87411
March 15th, 2010, 04:50 PM
I don't see any professional UI designers stepping up here, it's all just opinion about their choices.

Some things people will like, some things you don't and that's how life is.

I agree. I don't see any professional UI designers stepping up here either - on this forum or in Ubuntu. Professional UI designers go through huge amounts of testing with a sample set of users and they measure all sorts of information like reaction times, eye movements and muscle stresses as well as interviewing people and observing them during the testing, noting how many times they make a mistake or move the mouse to the wrong place. They also compare these results against existing known configurations so that they know whether its better or worse than before. UI designers do things scientifically. Ubuntu do it in a meeting with a white board. There is a difference - one uses empirical evidence to support a design or a change to a design, the other is based on opinion, subjectivity and a large latte.

I know enough to research UI design and HCI and I know enough to present arguments against this particular change. And so do many others who have bothered to constructively criticise this change.

There are a growing number of arguments listed in this thread, Scott Ritchie's blog posting, the Ubuntu bug report and in the feedback on Ivanka Majic's original post against this change.

There are few arguments offered by the Ubuntu devs or anyone else for the change.? From what I can tell so far there has been; grouping all icon and menu components together on the left means less mouse movement; because of this grouping you have so much more free title bar for something - not sure what; it's a change and therefore must be good; we had a meeting. And not a whole lot more.

If there needs to be anything there needs to be more constructive argument to support this change and not the straw man arguments that are comapring it to car design and that anyone who deosn't like it is just being lame.

If someone can come up up with some arguments supported by evidence for making this change then I'm happy to listen. Saying 'you don't like change' isn't good enough because that's not an argument that's a blind assertion.

Half-Left
March 15th, 2010, 05:08 PM
I agree. I don't see any professional UI designers stepping up here either - on this forum or in Ubuntu. Professional UI designers go through huge amounts of testing with a sample set of users and they measure all sorts of information like reaction times, eye movements and muscle stresses as well as interviewing people and observing them during the testing, noting how many times they make a mistake or move the mouse to the wrong place. They also compare these results against existing known configurations so that they know whether its better or worse than before. UI designers do things scientifically. Ubuntu do it in a meeting with a white board. There is a difference - one uses empirical evidence to support a design or a change to a design, the other is based on opinion, subjectivity and a large latte.

I know enough to research UI design and HCI and I know enough to present arguments against this particular change. And so do many others who have bothered to constructively criticise this change.

There are a growing number of arguments listed in this thread, Scott Ritchie's blog posting, the Ubuntu bug report and in the feedback on Ivanka Majic's original post against this change.

There are few arguments offered by the Ubuntu devs or anyone else for the change.? From what I can tell so far there has been; grouping all icon and menu components together on the left means less mouse movement; because of this grouping you have so much more free title bar for something - not sure what; it's a change and therefore must be good; we had a meeting. And not a whole lot more.

If there needs to be anything there needs to be more constructive argument to support this change and not the straw man arguments that are comapring it to car design and that anyone who deosn't like it is just being lame.

If someone can come up up with some arguments supported by evidence for making this change then I'm happy to listen. Saying 'you don't like change' isn't good enough because that's not an argument that's a blind assertion.

Canonical have a real problem. Part of growing up, there are growing pains and UI design changes are part of that. Also, if Apple and Microsoft are anything to go by, the marketing people my well get their grubby hands on it and change things for marketing sake.

I'm not saying this is the case with Canonical but there are hints of that. If Mark Shuttleworth intends to match or better OS X(as he claims), marketing will have a part to play in that right down to the UI changes.

xebian
March 15th, 2010, 05:10 PM
I agree. I don't see any professional UI designers stepping up here either - on this forum or in Ubuntu. Professional UI designers go through huge amounts of testing with a sample set of users and they measure all sorts of information like reaction times, eye movements and muscle stresses as well as interviewing people and observing them during the testing, noting how many times they make a mistake or move the mouse to the wrong place. They also compare these results against existing known configurations so that they know whether its better or worse than before. UI designers do things scientifically. Ubuntu do it in a meeting with a white board. There is a difference - one uses empirical evidence to support a design or a change to a design, the other is based on opinion, subjectivity and a large latte.

I know enough to research UI design and HCI and I know enough to present arguments against this particular change. And so do many others who have bothered to constructively criticise this change.

There are a growing number of arguments listed in this thread, Scott Ritchie's blog posting, the Ubuntu bug report and in the feedback on Ivanka Majic's original post against this change.

There are few arguments offered by the Ubuntu devs or anyone else for the change.? From what I can tell so far there has been; grouping all icon and menu components together on the left means less mouse movement; because of this grouping you have so much more free title bar for something - not sure what; it's a change and therefore must be good; we had a meeting. And not a whole lot more.

If there needs to be anything there needs to be more constructive argument to support this change and not the straw man arguments that are comapring it to car design and that anyone who deosn't like it is just being lame.

If someone can come up up with some arguments supported by evidence for making this change then I'm happy to listen. Saying 'you don't like change' isn't good enough because that's not an argument that's a blind assertion.

It's not rocket science. Even a 'cave man' will tell you which is right. It's like eating with the spoon on your left using your right hand.

Imagine you are sitting on a branch and cut it on your left side with your right hand.

Or shift with your right hand when the shifter is on your left while driving.

aysiu
March 15th, 2010, 05:12 PM
You can ask users for their input without having it be a straight democratic vote.

Here's how you do it:

Step 1: Announce that you are exploring new ways of changing the Ubuntu look and feel. Have users take a survey on various options with an express caveat that the decision will be made not based directly on the user feedback but still taking the feedback into account.

Step 2: Consult among the design team to figure out what the best way is to implement a change (What problem does it solve? What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks? How does it affect usability? What obstacles will there be to adapting to the new change?). Finally come to a decision.

Step 3: Announce (could be on a mailing list, a blog, a wiki entry... ANYTHING!) the change and the rationale behind the change. Explain both the explicit and specific benefits of the change and the drawbacks you have recognized.

Here's how not to do it:

Step 1: Consult amongst the design team.

Step 2: Make a seemingly arbitrary change that brings about no immediately obvious usability improvements

Step 3: Allow the Ubuntu communities and other non-design team employees to speculate as to what reasons (or not) there may be for the change. Just hope they get used to it.

See the difference? You don't have to be a slave to the opinions of the masses. You just have to involve the community and explain the reasons for your choices.

Madspyman
March 15th, 2010, 05:21 PM
see the difference? You don't have to be a slave to the opinions of the masses. You just have to involve the community and explain the reasons for your choices.

+1

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 05:56 PM
You don't have to be a slave to the opinions of the masses. You just have to involve the community and explain the reasons for your choices.

Hence why I switched to Linux Mint over the weekend :D. Canonical over the years has really started to make it seem like they want to "make" a community instead of "being" one, and since Mint is very very VERY community-based, it's exactly what I think Ubuntu should be. I'm loving it so far and I get to keep all of the Ubuntu community I know and love (plus the launchpad PPA repositories :P).

PS: Just because "proffesional UI designers" made the look, it does not mean it is better than what we had before. I know some doctors for example that give the craziest advice! Saying their opinions are more valid than ours (as well as assuming that they actually tested this button layout thuroughly and listened to their evidence) is ignorant. If they actually showed us "why" they changed, things would be a lot more different (as aysiu is saying as well as most of the other people in this thread).

elefantcrossing
March 15th, 2010, 06:27 PM
no wonder there are so many windows users out there. how can you expect them to be able to switch their operating system they have used for so many years if lots of ubuntu users already start crying if you change their accustomed window border button order/location? ;)

ekerazha
March 15th, 2010, 06:51 PM
no wonder there are so many windows users out there. how can you expect them to be able to switch their operating system they have used for so many years if lots of ubuntu users already start crying if you change their accustomed window border button order/location? ;)

Here the only crying people is the people who want this senseless change (because there isn't any good reason to change the buttons location). So leave the buttons where they always were... ngeeee ngeeee I want buttons on the left because I wanna be like a Mac, I WANT it, I WANT the buttons on the LEFT, NOW!

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 07:04 PM
no wonder there are so many windows users out there. how can you expect them to be able to switch their operating system they have used for so many years if lots of ubuntu users already start crying if you change their accustomed window border button order/location? ;)

It isn't that they changed the default button order that we're annoyed about, it's the "live with it", smug "we know better than you" attitude we're being given by not providing the Ubuntu community with any involvement in the decision. They threw it out right before the UI freeze and without asking anyone about it. Free Software, which Ubuntu is (mostly) based on and Canonical "claims" it supports, is not about being different for the sake of being different; it's about being a community and working together to free users from proprietaty-ness.

Canonical isn't acting like we're a community trying to help Ubuntu. They're acting like they know better than us and don't need our input. They're throwing the whole idea of a free culture away. I love Ubuntu, don't get me wrong, but when people ignore their own community like that I get rather annoyed.

Now if they just decided to be more open about their decisions... maybe I'd change my mind :D.

Keyper7
March 15th, 2010, 07:04 PM
no wonder there are so many windows users out there. how can you expect them to be able to switch their operating system they have used for so many years if lots of ubuntu users already start crying if you change their accustomed window border button order/location? ;)

Please. I understand the choice of not reading the entire thread, but do not make uninformed statements just for the sake of being snarky and cool.

Reasonable reasons other than "being accustomed" were repeatably given, not only here but in several places as well.

Kazade
March 15th, 2010, 07:06 PM
nigelb: so we can expect the left to stay? (just curious)
sabdfl: yes, that's the likely outcome


Source: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/03/15/%23ubuntu-desktop.html

So, there you have it.

Toadinator, room over at Mint for one more?

Keyper7
March 15th, 2010, 07:15 PM
You can ask users for their input without having it be a straight democratic vote.

Here's how you do it:

Step 1: Announce that you are exploring new ways of changing the Ubuntu look and feel. Have users take a survey on various options with an express caveat that the decision will be made not based directly on the user feedback but still taking the feedback into account.

Step 2: Consult among the design team to figure out what the best way is to implement a change (What problem does it solve? What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks? How does it affect usability? What obstacles will there be to adapting to the new change?). Finally come to a decision.

Step 3: Announce (could be on a mailing list, a blog, a wiki entry... ANYTHING!) the change and the rationale behind the change. Explain both the explicit and specific benefits of the change and the drawbacks you have recognized.

Here's how not to do it:

Step 1: Consult amongst the design team.

Step 2: Make a seemingly arbitrary change that brings about no immediately obvious usability improvements

Step 3: Allow the Ubuntu communities and other non-design team employees to speculate as to what reasons (or not) there may be for the change. Just hope they get used to it.

See the difference? You don't have to be a slave to the opinions of the masses. You just have to involve the community and explain the reasons for your choices.

Oh boy, how I want this post to be in every single design team member mailbox...


So, there you have it.

Frankly, I've come to the point where I simply don't care if it will stay or not. I'm not giving a rat's *** anymore if they decide to nuke the buttons altogether and make the user depend solely on right-click.

I just want an official statement of any sort. "A pink elephant appeared in a dream and said left is the way to go." "The tea leaves said so." "It's my personal preference and other users be damned." Something, anything, as long as it's official and not just speculative. The IRC logs say "it's the direction I want the UI to go". Which direction for God's sake? A wiki, a mail in the Ayatana list, something, please?

aysiu
March 15th, 2010, 07:17 PM
Source: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/03/15/%23ubuntu-desktop.html

So, there you have it.

Toadinator, room over at Mint for one more?
From the same link, though:
cjohnston: there are arguments for an against the move left. the decision to go left is mine, based on design preference and where i want the UI to move next
i'm open to real feedback, especially genuine reports of "i clicked the wrong thing accidentally" rather than speculative "people will click the wrong thing accidentally" Where can we give Mark Shuttleworth this real feedback? I certainly clicked on the wrong thing accidentally.

Kazade
March 15th, 2010, 07:19 PM
From the same link, though: Where can we give Mark Shuttleworth this real feedback? I certainly clicked on the wrong thing accidentally.

Yeah I'd like to know to... perhaps that IRC channel? The bug reports? The ayatana mailing list? The ubuntu-art mailing list? Ivanka's blog post? All of the above?

Keyper7
March 15th, 2010, 07:24 PM
perhaps that IRC channel?

It might be a good bet.


The bug reports?

Too much noise.


The ayatana mailing list?

Not working so far.


The ubuntu-art mailing list?

Probably more adequate to artwork questions than interface design.


Ivanka's blog post?

Lost momentum. Probably no one relevant is visiting it regularly anymore.


Perhaps email mark@ubuntu.com?

The more publicly the question is made, the better.

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 07:26 PM
Toadinator, room over at Mint for one more?

Dang, how I wish I could change my username to something else (I came up with this when I was around 13 so it stinks... horribly) :P

And of course: http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php

If you pick the Universal edition and still want the extra codecs and stuff, there should be a menu option to automatically install all of that (I remember something in Ubuntu Brainstorm about this ;) ).

Half-Left
March 15th, 2010, 07:36 PM
Until you don't like something Linux Mint change. They might even follow Ubuntu and that would be funny. :D

Madspyman
March 15th, 2010, 07:38 PM
Source: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/03/15/%23ubuntu-desktop.html

So, there you have it.

From the link.



Originally Posted by sabdfl
cjohnston: the decision to go left is mine, based on design preference and where i want the UI to move next

And we have a reason for the button switch. One person though it was good for him, so it's good for all. Ubuntu is not a really a community distro, is it?

Merk42
March 15th, 2010, 07:42 PM
From the link.




And we have a reason for the button switch. One person though it was good for them, so it's good for all. Ubuntu is not a really a community distro, is it?

You do know what Mark Shuttleworth's username, sabdfl stands for, right?

aysiu
March 15th, 2010, 07:48 PM
And we have a reason for the button switch. One person though it was good for them, so it's good for all. Ubuntu is not a really a community distro, is it? Even then there was no real explanation of why he preferred it personally. "I like it." "Why?" "Because I prefer it."

aysiu
March 15th, 2010, 07:49 PM
You do know what Mark Shuttleworth's username, sabdfl stands for, right? The b is supposed to stand for benevolent.

Madspyman
March 15th, 2010, 07:51 PM
You do know what Mark Shuttleworth's username, sabdfl stands for, right?

Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life.

I thought he was kidding.

ElSlunko
March 15th, 2010, 07:56 PM
The b is supposed to stand for benevolent.

More people will know the definition of dictator than benevolent :P.

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 07:58 PM
Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life.

I thought he was kidding.

I'm sorry but I laughed so hard when I found this out. Oh wow XD...

*burns more Linux Mint discs to give to friends*

ElSlunko
March 15th, 2010, 08:00 PM
I'm sorry but I laughed so hard when I found this out. Oh wow XD...

*burns more Linux Mint discs to give to friends*

Look up the history of the term.

Kazade
March 15th, 2010, 08:03 PM
cjohnston: the decision to go left is mine, based on design preference and where i want the UI to move next


You know... this has me a little suspicious...

As we know, having the buttons on the left is totally not compatible with Gnome Shell... is Ubuntu going to shun Gnome shell completely?

Think about it, Gnome shell has its own notifications as well, and there is no talk of dropping notify-osd in the near future... :)

23meg
March 15th, 2010, 08:06 PM
The b is supposed to stand for benevolent.

Which perhaps corresponds to the part where he invites feedback and leaves the door open to putting the controls on the right.

Which is not to say that everything about the way the experiment (not "decision"; there's no decision, this is the development branch!) has been rolled out is right.

HalfEmptyHero
March 15th, 2010, 08:20 PM
I'm sorry but I laughed so hard when I found this out. Oh wow XD...

*burns more Linux Mint discs to give to friends*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_For_Life

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 08:21 PM
Look up the history of the term.

Why I laughed was because of his reaction. Maybe I should hang out on ubuntu-related channels more often...

I know what benevolent means and I am aware that we're testing this layout... at least I hope we are.

Madspyman
March 15th, 2010, 08:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_For_Life

From the link,


Raymond elaborates on how the nature of open source forces the "dictatorship" to keep itself benevolent, since a strong disagreement can lead to the forking of the project under the rule of new leaders.

Wonder what the next fork will be?

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 08:29 PM
Wonder what the next fork will be?

There have already been quite a few (though they're usually along the lines of just being re-configured Ubuntu flavors). I hate to mention its name again for fear of trolling/looking like a fanboy, but there's a flavor that's a bit closer to a fork than others and is much more community oriented than Ubuntu is (and is currently #3 in Distrowatch behind Fedora).

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 08:42 PM
Yet another thing to consider: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/no-new-system-sound-theme-for-ubuntu.html


A commenter on Mark Shuttleworth’s blog (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/) asked whether there would be an updated sound theme (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/308#comment-324337) to match the new branding, jogging the memory of our self-appointed benevolent dictator for life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabdfl) and getting this response: -


Mark Shuttleworth: Gack, I completely forgot about that. A very good point. Would you see if you can rally a round of community submissions for a sound theme inspired by light?

...so the all-knowing design team didn't think of a sound theme? I'd hate for people to wonder why they're hearing bongos on such a shiny, non-ubuntu-inspired OS (the philosophy, which they're not as proudly showing support of as of the latest design change). Not to mention how the buttons will probably stay the same as they are right now in Lucid. :\

magneze
March 15th, 2010, 09:01 PM
I tried to get used to be buttons, but I've now switched back to the old layout.

Still can't believe there's no reason for the change and no user testing was involved.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

Keyper7
March 15th, 2010, 09:10 PM
Okay, some progress at least, despite being small:


Sam, thanks for making the PPA, and I encourage folks who prefer that
layout to use it, or to follow the instructions for setting the gconf
preference manually. It's great that you can do that.

The default position of the window controls will remain the left,
throughout beta1. We're interested in data which could influence the
ultimate decision. There are good reasons both for the change, and
against them, and ultimately the position will be decided based on what
we want to achieve over time.

Moving everything to the left opens up the space on the right nicely,
and I would like to experiment in 10.10 with some innovative options
there. It's much easier to do that if we make this change now. I
appreciate that it's an emotive subject, and apologise for the fact that
I haven't been responding in detail to every comment - I'm busy moving
house this week. But the design team is well aware of the controversy,
your (polite) comments and more importantly *data* are very welcome and
will help make the best decision.

When we have a celebrity bug report like this, it's a real exercise for
our values of communication, civility, and ubuntu. Thank you to those
who have pointed to the code of conduct when things get heated. And
thanks even more to those who FELT heated but didn't let it show :-)

Still not exactly the most detailed explanation ever, but at least we get a small clue: future innovative possibilities for the right side. I'm still not satisfied, but this is still enough for me to ask... Was that so hard? Frankly. One phrase and things are 500% less "guessing being throw all around" than before.

Why couldn't they do this sooner? It wouldn't even need to be Mark, any kind of mini official statement would be fine.

Okay, now that I let off some steam, I have to say about the later comments on Mark that I think it's fair to cut him some slack. He might be the big honcho at Canonical, but it's not like Canonical employees receive one billion dollars per month, are in the most spectacular job ever or would have difficulties finding another job. Mark might have much more say than anyone else in Canonical, but if he started throwing arbitrary ideas all around without justification the employees would simply leave to greener places. I don't agree with radical statements such as "there is no care for the community", but if you want to use them, I think it's more fair to use them against Canonical as a whole, not just Mark.

plun
March 15th, 2010, 09:12 PM
I tried to get used to be buttons, but I've now switched back to the old layout.

Still can't believe there's no reason for the change and no user testing was involved.



Yep did the same...

Not even a "call for testing" just silence about this. Also nothing in a Launchpad blueprint or Ubuntu wiki page....

Terrible !!!

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 09:14 PM
Okay, some progress at least, despite being small:

=D> :popcorn:

Finally. Now only if they could have said something earlier, or been more transparent ;).

Keyper7
March 15th, 2010, 09:21 PM
Sorry, forgot the source:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633?comments=all

jfernyhough
March 15th, 2010, 09:24 PM
OK, I've tried the new layout and it doesn't work. Why?

1) Scrollbars.
2) The last thing I want to do is close the window. This should be furthest away from the window content, not the first button.

All scrollbars are on the right. Just as the tabs in Nautilus at the bottom was wrong as the menu and scrollbar is at the top, window tools should be on the right - unless they're going to move the scrollbars too? Maybe make it like RiscOS? (Though I'm not sure how MacOS makes it work - maybe because of exposť and the dock)

--edit

Just out of interest I thought I'd try a left-hand button_layout of close,minimize,maximize. It works far, far better.

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 09:52 PM
Here's an interesting thing someone said on Identica:


BroWren (26 minutes ago from Gwibber in reply to tjgillies)
@tjgillies Imagine if a car came with the gas and brake swapped - most likely the average driver would not want it. Why do that to !ubuntu?

...by the way, 600th post :D! This thread's growing up so fast :'). I wonder what the record for longest thread is?

d5j9
March 15th, 2010, 09:59 PM
And after just 60 pages of this topic, we have an answer. If the design team is planning to put things on the right in the future, fine. But don't move the buttons to the left until you have something on the right or another reason to.

Half-Left
March 15th, 2010, 10:03 PM
Here's an interesting thing someone said on Identica:



...by the way, 600th post :D! This thread's growing up so fast :'). I wonder what the record for longest thread is?

That's funny though because it happens all the time when people go to different countries and drive.

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 10:03 PM
But don't move the buttons to the left until you have something on the right or another reason to.

Mark said there was something they wanted to use the right side for, apparently. What could they possibly use that side for that they couldn't do on the left side?

ElSlunko
March 15th, 2010, 10:10 PM
But don't move the buttons to the left until you have something on the right or another reason to.

Well he did address that he felt it would be a good time for people to get used to it now for the future ideas.

magneze
March 15th, 2010, 10:12 PM
Wanting to do something on the right is quite a good reason, but how about making the changes all together! Then it's understandable.

However, I'd still (personally) want to do extensive usability testing so that I could prove without a shadow of doubt that this was the right move for the right reasons.

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 10:14 PM
That's funny though because it happens all the time when people go to different countries and drive.

Think of each OS like a country. Windows is like China (huge and not as freedom-liking as other countries), Mac OS is like Japan (small but very shiny and is very popular regardless of its size), and think of Linux-based OSes like the USA or Canada (different states/provinces, lots of different ways of doing things depending on where you call home, but it's still the same country). Think of Ubuntu like Texas. Lets say Texas decided to have people driving on the other side of the road to be different. Not only is this inconsistent with everyone else in the country, but there wasn't much of a reason behind the change (though they did say they were planning to use the other side for things later... wait, what?).

There's our situation now. Going to another country and seeing that they do things differently is normal and should be expected. But changing the way you do things within a section of your own country is, well, strange.

Madspyman
March 15th, 2010, 10:14 PM
Mark said there was something they wanted to use the right side for, apparently. What could they possibly use that side for that they couldn't do on the left side?

The file menu maybe?

aysiu
March 15th, 2010, 10:14 PM
I agree with comment #117 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/117). Just because you want to free up the right side doesn't mean you can't have the button order make sense being on the left (the close button should be on the outside, just as it is on Mac OS X).

aysiu
March 15th, 2010, 10:18 PM
Think of each OS like a country. Windows is like Russia or China(huge and not as freedom-liking as other countries), Mac OS is like Japan (small but very shiny and is very popular regardless of its size), and think of Linux-based OSes like the USA or Canada (different states/provinces, lots of different ways of doing things depending on where you call home, but it's still the same country). Think of Ubuntu like Texas. Lets say Texas decided to have people driving on the other side of the road to be different. Not only is this inconsistent with everyone else in the country, but there wasn't much of a reason behind the change (though they did say they were planning to use the other side for things later... wait, what?). It's actually worse than that.

Countries that drive on the left side of the road having the steering wheel on the right side of the car. Countries that drive on the right side of the road have the steering wheel on the left side of the car.

This change would be more akin to Texas keeping the steering wheel on the left side of the car but also deciding to drive on the left side of the road.

Because that's what happened in Lucid alpha: the button order wasn't reversed, but the set of button controls all moved over to the left. It's not the same arrangement Mac OS X has.

Toadinator
March 15th, 2010, 10:34 PM
The file menu maybe?

They moved the buttons to the left so they could move the menu bar to the right? Really? And what would their reasons be for that? Because they moved the window buttons? It's circular reasoning! If they did that, the reasoning they'd have is because they created a problem for themselves (for no reason) and decided to fix it with yet another usability-test-less change. What's wrong with keeping things how they were?

I want to know what in the world they're possibly thinking of doing with that right side that's compatible with upstream, no less.


This change would be more akin to Texas keeping the steering wheel on the left side of the car but also deciding to drive on the left side of the road.

+1

seeker5528
March 15th, 2010, 10:35 PM
Try explaining to the people that like Chrome, Songbird, those Wine windows in virtual desktops, and all of those other programs that don't use the window manager all about how Ubuntu is trying to be different and in effect breaking consistency. Chrome is more popular on Linux than it is on other platforms, partially because of

These applications don't exactly look native to begin with, correct?

Assuming that previous indications are correct and the new button order will only be used for the light themes, then the easy solution will be to tell these people to use a non-light them, correct?

Are you really suggesting the button order should be limited for everybody because of a few applications that do not use native window boarders and that many people don't use?

As much as I like my buttons on the right, I can't really see using non-native and/or inflexible applications as an excuse to why they shouldn't be on the left.

For non-native applications, there is not much to do about that, there may or may not be something the Wine developers could do in Wine.

For cross platform applications, I could see for everything inside of a window, why they would use cross platform stuff, but for window boarders I can't really see a benefit for the application developers to draw their own window boarders instead of letting it be handled by the platform the application is running in.

Later, Seeker

magneze
March 15th, 2010, 10:40 PM
These applications don't exactly look native to begin with, correct?

Assuming that previous indications are correct and the new button order will only be used for the light themes, then the easy solution will be to tell these people to use a non-light them, correct?

Are you really suggesting the button order should be limited for everybody because of a few applications that do not use native window boarders and that many people don't use?

As much as I like my buttons on the right, I can't really see using non-native and/or inflexible applications as an excuse to why they shouldn't be on the left.

For non-native applications, there is not much to do about that, there may or may not be something the Wine developers could do in Wine.

For cross platform applications, I could see for everything inside of a window, why they would use cross platform stuff, but for window boarders I can't really see a benefit for the application developers to draw their own window boarders instead of letting it be handled by the platform the application is running in.

Later, SeekerWhat about Nautilus and Firefox? They have close buttons on the right.

Madspyman
March 15th, 2010, 10:51 PM
Ubuntu, "Linux for human beings."


Ubuntu is an ethic or humanist philosophy focusing on people's allegiances and relations with each other.

Ubuntu needs a new name, maybe,

Existentialux


Existentialism, a philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience.

Existentialux, "If you don't like it, that's your fault."

forcecore
March 15th, 2010, 10:57 PM
People please stop arguing, if developers plan to keep buttons on left FINE but provide easy option in System>Preferences

IT IS SOLUTION TO EVERYONE BELIVE ME.

This is one solution: http://eftimie.ro/store/window_controls.py

Keyper7
March 15th, 2010, 11:04 PM
People please stop arguing, if developers plan to keep buttons on left FINE but provide easy option in System>Preferences

IT IS SOLUTION TO EVERYONE BELIVE ME.

Sweeping the problem under the rug is never a solution.

Customizability is only reasonable when benefits and drawbacks of both possibilities are reasonably balanced, making very difficult to impose one.

The argumentation in favor of the change so far has been so weak that imposing the old way is quite easy.

OliW
March 15th, 2010, 11:12 PM
People please stop arguing, if developers plan to keep buttons on left FINE but provide easy option in System>Preferences

IT IS SOLUTION TO EVERYONE BELIVE ME.

This is one solution: http://eftimie.ro/store/window_controls.py

Or put the buttons back and then give users an easy KDE-style method to customise windows/buttons/etc so if they want to confuse themselves, they can.

Digital Hick
March 15th, 2010, 11:15 PM
As long as their is buttons, I am happy. They need to make a simple switch in a GUI somewhere for people who want it different.

magneze
March 15th, 2010, 11:15 PM
You spin me right round, baby
right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round

forcecore
March 15th, 2010, 11:16 PM
Or put the buttons back and then give users an easy KDE-style method to customise windows/buttons/etc so if they want to confuse themselves, they can.

that would be better of course but feature freeze is over and simple things can be integrated now.

23meg
March 15th, 2010, 11:31 PM
I'm closing this thread, as it's been going round in circles, with no hope of anything productive coming out of it.

We know at this point that the change was rolled out on the initiative of SABDFL (Mark Shuttleworth), who expects feedback on it, and is open to rolling it back based on that feedback. The window controls will remain on the left for Beta 1, but there's no final decision on where they will be for the release.

One way to gather such feedback is the thread aysiu started based on Mark's call (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/110):

Have you clicked on the wrong thing since the window control switch? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1430585)

Thanks for participating. Please provide your feedback in a polite and concise manner in the thread and bug report linked above.