PDA

View Full Version : a diagram showing the problems with the ubuntu gui



masterconnor
September 14th, 2008, 12:24 AM
hey. i have discovered some design problems with ubuntu default desktop. i have pointed them out in this picture. hopefully now i have pointed them out things can get better. keep up the good work.

http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/jpg/ubuntuneedtohiredesigners.jpg

oh and i know you can change the way it looks. this is about the default settings.

Neon Lights
September 14th, 2008, 12:52 AM
Live desktops are ESSENTIAL. I'd leave Ubuntu if they removed it. I use the Show Desktop button (bottom left) quite frequently. Docks are HELLA annoying.

The theme is temporarily broken (you should've read that), so I'm not gonna bother with that.

The wallpaper is loads better than the last releases, and you really didn't need to use any crude language to get your point across.

I agree with most of your other points though. Spacing, icons, etc.

jonofan
September 14th, 2008, 01:07 AM
You sir, are a muptard.

Giant Speck
September 14th, 2008, 01:22 AM
Who.... cares?

OutOfReach
September 14th, 2008, 01:29 AM
People would take you more seriously if you hadn't used the poor language you used. :/

jonian_g
September 14th, 2008, 01:55 AM
Ubuntu is just fine and the theme you are talking about is on the ibex alpha version and it will not be the final theme.
Default wallpapers suck on all OSes not just ubuntu, but if you want a great wallpaper I can send you a photo of me... naked.
The show desktop button is very useful and I use it all the time. Docks are annoying and I don't use one.
Multiple desktops are very useful and it is a great feature.

The theme and the icons could be better, but who cares. If you don't like them you can create your own and contribute to the community.

Neon Lights
September 14th, 2008, 02:10 AM
Default wallpapers suck on all OSes not just ubuntu, but if you want a great wallpaper I can send you a photo of me... naked.
I've been looking for a new wallpaper.....

ddarsow
September 14th, 2008, 02:15 AM
Some people should probably not post.
This thread is a perfect example of what I mean.
SEriously, are you serious?
If so...perhaps a bit more tactful approach would be in order.

cdsboy
September 14th, 2008, 05:07 AM
Some of the things you pointed out are problems with gnome not ubuntu (e.g the spacers).

kostkon
September 14th, 2008, 05:27 AM
Bad presentation, weak points. And, this is not the final desktop theme for 8.10 so your whole thing is pointless.

michaelbogardus
September 14th, 2008, 05:46 PM
This is a joke right?

Half-Left
September 14th, 2008, 06:36 PM
Some of the things you pointed out are problems with gnome not ubuntu (e.g the spacers).

And the fact that icons are mixed but at the same time GNOMe refuse to fix these issues, default GNOME has always been poor, thats why the leave it to the distros.

hessiess
September 14th, 2008, 08:11 PM
autohide the pannels if you dont like looking at them, thay waste too much space anyway. or better still, map all your aplications to the keybord and get rid of them alltogether.

Tomrade
September 14th, 2008, 10:51 PM
your points are about a actual bug theme which is because the old new human theme was no longer going to be default you should look at hardy to make your points and designer has been hired to do the new theme

masterconnor
September 14th, 2008, 11:15 PM
your points are about a actual bug theme which is because the old new human theme was no longer going to be default you should look at hardy to make your points and designer has been hired to do the new theme


i made the image for another forum. and this was just trolling. my point still stands however.

if it is a bug theme why is it the screenshot on wikipedia. where can i see the correct theme ? how am i supposed to know there is a bug.

to those who say 'who cares' about design. well i despair.

to those who say 'it's a problem with gnome. they refuse to fix it' then what is being done about this. also in terms of hiring design students/companies to fix it ?

my problem is not with the wallpaper. of course that is easily changed.

as for the bottom toolbar features. i am sure they have use. but from a design perspective they should not be there as default setting.

but it seems nobody cares about design and that is why ubuntu looks worse than windows 98. in fact. on wikipedias page showing the history of ubuntu screenshots. the first version of ubuntu (version 4 or something) looks a lot nicer than the current version.

Whiffle
September 14th, 2008, 11:20 PM
People would take you more seriously if you hadn't used the poor language you used. :/

ditto x eleventybillion


you know what they say about opinions...


speaking of which, what are your qualifications for judging this?

-grubby
September 14th, 2008, 11:26 PM
LOL, even if you meant that to be serious I found it hilarious

lisati
September 14th, 2008, 11:31 PM
Default wallpapers suck on all OSes not just ubuntu, but if you want a great wallpaper I can send you a photo of me... naked.

Hey - I was about to have my morning tea! :lolflag:


Keep on smiling!

Jackelope
September 15th, 2008, 03:41 AM
Its the alpha version, of course it won't look great! And I for one like the heron...though more default nature background would be nice. And yes, the language isn't helping anyone. We're civilized people, and we don't need to curse about wallpaper.

Thank you kindly for you time.

days_of_ruin
September 15th, 2008, 05:27 AM
Don't feed the trolls.

Tomrade
September 15th, 2008, 01:03 PM
i made the image for another forum. and this was just trolling. my point still stands however.

if it is a bug theme why is it the screenshot on wikipedia. where can i see the correct theme ? how am i supposed to know there is a bug.

to those who say 'who cares' about design. well i despair.

to those who say 'it's a problem with gnome. they refuse to fix it' then what is being done about this. also in terms of hiring design students/companies to fix it ?

my problem is not with the wallpaper. of course that is easily changed.

as for the bottom toolbar features. i am sure they have use. but from a design perspective they should not be there as default setting.

but it seems nobody cares about design and that is why ubuntu looks worse than windows 98. in fact. on wikipedias page showing the history of ubuntu screenshots. the first version of ubuntu (version 4 or something) looks a lot nicer than the current version.

The correct theme isnt made yet ,that theme is just there because no one bothered to put the old one back when they stopped new human

An art designer has been hired and is working on the new theme while 2 community themes will also ship

wikipedia shows that screen shot because it is how the latests alpha looks like unless they have a time machine they cant show the final theme

Dragonbite
September 15th, 2008, 01:58 PM
Logo... I like it, it has brand recognition. People see that and many (mostly Linux users) know that is Ubuntu whether or not they use Ubuntu. Now if you were showing a Kubuntu screenshot and pointed to the "K" icon and ask why isn't it the Kubuntu icon then I would agree.
Yes, there is some inconsistancy in the icon sizes that could be addressed.
Is hte spacer needed? yes. I believe that is also the system tray so it will grow and shrink as apps are opened.
The logout logo is a bit out of place, but you want it noticeable to make it easy for people to shut it down.
The heron looks fine, and it is easy enough to change. I would prefer if Ubuntu included more high-quality background images to choose from but with Picasa's photo pile I make my own.
The "X" to close the window does look a little off.
Titlebar: what font do YOU suggest that is open enough to be used? I've fooled around with Liberation and found that in some instances it looks horrible and in others it looks great.
"er..."? what about it. The terminal (which the icon seems to match the application) is actually a menu, and the brown-striped title bar is a lot better than a solid brown (and they aren't going to move too far from the brown anytime soon, so deal with it.
"can't remember what this is" is not a good enough reason to remove it. It's a "show desktop" icon btw, so it minimizes all of your open apps on the desktop so you can clean up your clutter
"big fat waste of screen" is the taskbar. Open a few files and you will see that you need that space to house the icon/buttons of all of your open apps. And speaking of a "waste of screen", those docs take up much more space than this panel.
"stupid feature" ? Once you get used to multiple desktops you find them very handy and addictive. I wish my Windows machine has multiple desktops. Usually, though, I have 4, and I use Ctrl + Alt + <arrow key> to go between them. Try it, it's pretty nice, and easy.
Trash Icon is fine, most people don't notice it. Not sure about the spacing.


So in my humble take of it, the only real valid gripes I would try turning around as a suggestion is:

consistent icon sizing in panels (though that is more an issue with the application's icon developers than Ubuntu)
title-bar font (though don't know which font would work better. Maybe if they can tweak Liberation?)


Otherwise, you can change your desktop to whatever you want.

AJB2K3
September 15th, 2008, 06:04 PM
Hay I found a bug in Ubuntu's interface too, the bug is
IT's NOT F'ing WINDOWS, god I hate theese dumb twits that think every os must look like that bottom rate crap MS call an interface.

2cute4u
September 15th, 2008, 11:03 PM
ithink most the people repying to this thread miss the point, and the point is MARKETING. For most people the desicion to use ubuntu or not is heavily influyenced by what the DEFAULT theme looks like. Yes people can always change it but thats irrelevent. it has to look good and function nice OUT OF THE BOX.

One thing gnome and by extention Ubuntu is really bad at is sizing and spacing. In fact they even do worse than windows. I'm not saying we should copy OSX, but we should take a lesson from Apple about interface design: The subtle details are what makes the difference.

jonian_g
September 15th, 2008, 11:55 PM
ithink most the people repying to this thread miss the point, and the point is MARKETING. For most people the desicion to use ubuntu or not is heavily influyenced by what the DEFAULT theme looks like. Yes people can always change it but thats irrelevent. it has to look good and function nice OUT OF THE BOX.

One thing gnome and by extention Ubuntu is really bad at is sizing and spacing. In fact they even do worse than windows. I'm not saying we should copy OSX, but we should take a lesson from Apple about interface design: The subtle details are what makes the difference.

I see all the time all these suggestions to change the default theme for marketing reasons. Probably these people don't know anything about marketing.

MAKING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES THAT EXIST (orange instead of blue, green, grey) AND MAKING IT IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZABLE IS GOOD MARKETING.

The majority of PC users have Windows XP with the default theme which is worse than the ubuntu default theme. So I don't see how the default theme keeps people away from ubuntu.

ammikulka
September 18th, 2008, 01:54 AM
Ubuntu is just fine and the theme you are talking about is on the ibex alpha version and it will not be the final theme.
Default wallpapers suck on all OSes not just ubuntu, but if you want a great wallpaper I can send you a photo of me... naked.
The show desktop button is very useful and I use it all the time. Docks are annoying and I don't use one.
Multiple desktops are very useful and it is a great feature.

The theme and the icons could be better, but who cares. If you don't like them you can create your own and contribute to the community.

...ill take that wallpaper too

jonian_g
September 18th, 2008, 12:14 PM
My wallpaper has a great success. I'll ask to have it in the Ibex wallpapers!:lolflag:

kaboodle_fish
September 18th, 2008, 12:25 PM
you know what they say about onions*...

They make your eyes water when cutting them?

They go great in cheese sandwiches?

No hotdog should ever be without them?


*OK, I made a slight edit here

jonian_g
September 18th, 2008, 12:33 PM
They make your eyes water when cutting them?

They go great in cheese sandwiches?

No hotdog should ever be without them?


*OK, I made a slight edit here

They give you bad breath? :)

dmitriy
September 22nd, 2008, 07:53 PM
thats messed up people! masterconnor got a point (or many). spacing of ui components is messed up all over the place in ubuntu or any other linux system. i dont get why you need to resist a change thinking it will make ubuntu look like windows. it wont!!!!!! it will just make it prettier and will look like it's a finished project. (cuz it's not now) I agree with most of the points he made. And even if that theme he was referring to is old or whatever there are tons of similar changes in any official ubuntu release.

i dont get one thing. when someone posts a crappy wallpaper or everyone starts saying its good or never seen such a beauty and stuff like that but when someone actually criticizes people start bitching. grow up already.

"MAKING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES THAT EXIST (orange instead of blue, green, grey) AND MAKING IT IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZABLE IS GOOD MARKETING." - good marketing is NOT crappy ui. different does not mean it should look f-ed up.

-dmitriy

jonian_g
September 22nd, 2008, 10:17 PM
thats messed up people! masterconnor got a point (or many). spacing of ui components is messed up all over the place in ubuntu or any other linux system. i dont get why you need to resist a change thinking it will make ubuntu look like windows. it wont!!!!!! it will just make it prettier and will look like it's a finished project. (cuz it's not now) I agree with most of the points he made. And even if that theme he was referring to is old or whatever there are tons of similar changes in any official ubuntu release.

i dont get one thing. when someone posts a crappy wallpaper or everyone starts saying its good or never seen such a beauty and stuff like that but when someone actually criticizes people start bitching. grow up already.

"MAKING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES THAT EXIST (orange instead of blue, green, grey) AND MAKING IT IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZABLE IS GOOD MARKETING." - good marketing is NOT crappy ui. different does not mean it should look f-ed up.

-dmitriy

Ok, let's talk about marketing. Marketing relies on statistical data. Do you have any data that confirm that the majority of ubuntu users think the ubuntu gui is crappy? or you just rely on your instict?

Your personal opinion doesn't have to be everybody's opinion.

And, by the way, if ubuntu loses it's identity it will become another linux distro.

PS: I believe too that the looks of ubuntu can be improved but not by changing basic things, like the colour palette.

dmitriy
September 23rd, 2008, 12:56 AM
i did not say to change to color palette! it is one of the most unique aspects of ubuntu and i m fine with it. However, gui could be dramatically improved.

For now you dont need any statistical data. My mom or your mom wont voluntarily seat and enjoy ubuntu unless she is a geek.

My personal opinion should NOT be everybody's. If it would be so I would not be unique =) But obviously there are tons of crappy themes, wallpapers, and icons. Instead of people on the forums telling all this people for several pages that they like it it would be better if they would say its crap and let go OR critisize it as much as possible so creator will improve.

I would call one of the basic changes is consistent spacing. Forget about color palette. If the spacing is messed up no color palette can fix it.