Who is Gnome Shell designed by?

[Santaji]

Does GNOME have a official design team working on the Gnome Shell UI? Like how Canonical has a Ubuntu Design team for Unity.
If not, Then who is the Gnome Shell UI designed by?

[sydbat]

Does GNOME have a official design team working on the Gnome Shell UI? Like how Canonical has a Ubuntu Design team for Unity.
If not, Then who is the Gnome Shell UI designed by?Gnomes?

[Jesus_Valdez]

GNOME Shell design is led by William Jon McCann, a designer and developer with considerable expertise and a long-standing member of the GNOME community. Jakub Steiner, an accomplished designer with extensive experience in the FOSS design world, joined Jon as the second member of the GNOME Shell design team in 2010.

GNOME Shell design is a community project which is conducted in the open. Mockups can be found in the GNOME Shell design repository and discussions occur on the #gnome-design IRC channel. GNOME Shell design receives regular contributions from volunteers and community members.


GNOME Shell Design

http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/

GNOME Shell Design FAQ

http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/FAQ

[slackthumbz]

All that design work and they still produce a steaming pile of...

[Xantheil]

All that design work and they still produce a steaming pile of...

Amazing product?
That's what my opinion is. Some agree, some don't.
Just give them some damn respect...

[gnomeuser]

the daft idea of using Javascript to craft the experience you can likely credit to Havoc, who used to be at Red Hat but now works for netbook startup Litl.

The initial design was done at the GNOME UX hackfest back in 2008, it has though always seemingly been lead by Jon McCann wrote the "bible" of the gnome-shell design.

It is in honesty largely a Red Hat driven project, from design to implementation.

[slackthumbz]

Amazing product?
That's what my opinion is. Some agree, some don't.
Just give them some damn respect...

I'll give respect where it's due and gnome-shell is due nothing but hefty criticism for ruining a great DE.

[Lucradia]

I'll give respect where it's due and gnome-shell is due nothing but hefty criticism for ruining a great DE.

I pretty much saw this coming from three football fields away. After all XFCE is basically the same as GNOME2, but by default it installs one panel on the bottom instead of two.

Regardless; if you want to keep the panels after GNOME destroys them, go to another DE, or go de-less.

[qamelian]

I'll give respect where it's due and gnome-shell is due nothing but hefty criticism for ruining a great DE.
That's a matter of opinion. I find Gnome-shell to be far superior to the Gnome 2.XX desktop. I won't run anything else on the laptop that is my primary workhorse.

[Copper Bezel]

After all XFCE is basically the same as GNOME2, but by default it installs one panel on the bottom instead of two.

Switching from Gnome to XFCE would be as much effort as it was for many of us switching from Windows to Gnome. I've never really got under the hood in XFCE and I get the sense that a lot of folks suggesting this haven't done so in Gnome, but they're very different animals, and whatever superficial similarities exist, Gnome 3 is still more like Gnome 2 than XFCE is.

[Roasted]

That's a matter of opinion. I find Gnome-shell to be far superior to the Gnome 2.XX desktop. I won't run anything else on the laptop that is my primary workhorse.

Do they still shoot down ideas in the design process, or have they actually become open minded?

"Why would you want a way to actively switch through open windows? You shouldn't have all of your windows maximized anyway."

^ Actual response from Gnome Shell mailing list.

Unity ftw.

[slackthumbz]

I pretty much saw this coming from three football fields away. After all XFCE is basically the same as GNOME2, but by default it installs one panel on the bottom instead of two.

Regardless; if you want to keep the panels after GNOME destroys them, go to another DE, or go de-less.

I don't want to keep the panels. I explicitly want to be able to completely disable all the extraneous panels and bars and simply use AWN and compiz to manage my desktop with the benefit of all gnome's under-the-hood backend integration. (Y'know, like what we can do with gnome 2.x right now).

As far as I can see gnome-shell takes away a massive amount of the flexibility of gnome and forces an ugly and thoroughly irritating desktop usage paradigm upon users.

[Lucradia]

I don't want to keep the panels. I explicitly want to be able to completely disable all the extraneous panels and bars and simply use AWN and compiz to manage my desktop with the benefit of all gnome's under-the-hood backend integration. (Y'know, like what we can do with gnome 2.x right now).

As far as I can see gnome-shell takes away a massive amount of the flexibility of gnome and forces an ugly and thoroughly irritating desktop usage paradigm upon users.

Compiz doesn't work well without a WM. If you want just Compiz:

Emerald, Compiz + Choice of Panel if needed.

In your case, said panel would be AWN. To manage your desktop, you'd need nitrogen or PCManFM/2. If you desire icons on the desktop, PCManFM/2 is needed. To get version 2, you need the lubuntu PPA. You will need to install menu and/or gnome-menu so AWN has access to menu applications.

You can go from there if you desire. But yes, it can be done, and yes, it's a bit more flexible than gnome-shell.

[slackthumbz]

Compiz doesn't work well without a WM. If you want just Compiz:

Emerald, Compiz + Choice of Panel if needed.

In your case, said panel would be AWN. To manage your desktop, you'd need nitrogen or PCManFM/2. If you desire icons on the desktop, PCManFM/2 is needed. To get version 2, you need the lubuntu PPA. You will need to install menu and/or gnome-menu so AWN has access to menu applications.

You can go from there if you desire. But yes, it can be done, and yes, it's a bit more flexible than gnome-shell.

I don't need desktop icons, my entire screen background is an embedded gnome-terminal, managed by compiz window rules. I want to use nautilus as my filemanager and I want all the backend desktop integration that gnome offers, all the config dialog stuff in the Preferences and Administration menus etc. As I said, what I want is gnome without gnome-panel, which I can currently do without any problems.

[youbuntu]

Gnichard Gnallman Gnof Gnourse!

:lol:

[bruce89]

I don't need desktop icons, my entire screen background is an embedded gnome-terminal, managed by compiz window rules. I want to use nautilus as my filemanager and I want all the backend desktop integration that gnome offers, all the config dialog stuff in the Preferences and Administration menus etc. As I said, what I want is gnome without gnome-panel, which I can currently do without any problems.

You must admit that's a fairly non-standard setup.



Do they still shoot down ideas in the design process, or have they actually become open minded?

"Why would you want a way to actively switch through open windows? You shouldn't have all of your windows maximized anyway."

^ Actual response from Gnome Shell mailing list.

Link or it wasn't said. Gmane returns no results.


Unity ftw.

Out of interest, have the Unity developers implemented users' ideas?

[Lucradia]

Link or it wasn't said. Gmane returns no results.

Especially if google can't search for it: http://www.google.com/#q=%22Why+would+you+want+a+way+to%22+-forums&hl=en&prmd=ivns&filter=0&fp=c89a5a3bf58535e6

[bruce89]

Especially if google can't search for it: http://www.google.com/#q=%22Why+would+you+want+a+way+to%22+-forums&hl=en&prmd=ivns&filter=0&fp=c89a5a3bf58535e6

I'm sure I heard that claim on some blog being refuted.

[Lucradia]

I'm sure I heard that claim on some blog being refuted.

Nor DuckDuckGo, nor bing, nor altavista. :P

[bruce89]

Nor DuckDuckGo, nor bing, nor altavista. :P

I'm not quite being truthful. There is one match - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=10575463

[Lucradia]

I'm not quite being truthful. There is one match - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=10575463

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/120821/81111835.jpg

[qamelian]

Unity ftw.No chance. Gnome-shell actually runs on my laptop and runs well. Unity does not run at all. Sorry, but after months of using it on a separate test machine, I can't find one good thing to say about Unity.

[slackthumbz]

You must admit that's a fairly non-standard setup.

Yes, yes it is and that's the beauty of gnome 2.x as opposed to the restrictive forced paradigms of gnome-shell and unity. The fact that I can have a set up like this that works incredibly smoothly and does everything I want, how I want, just the way I want is a testament to flexibility of the 'classic' gnome desktop.

Forcing a paradigm on the users goes against the most basic principles of the OSS community in terms of freedom, choice and providing tools that empower users to create unique and awesome desktops that suit them.

Forcing users to do things the way some narrow minded group of devs think they should is how Apple and MS do things. We shouldn't be following their example.

[beew]

I would rather ask whom Gnome Shell is designed for.

[bruce89]

Yes, yes it is and that's the beauty of gnome 2.x as opposed to the restrictive forced paradigms of gnome-shell and unity. The fact that I can have a set up like this that works incredibly smoothly and does everything I want, how I want, just the way I want is a testament to flexibility of the 'classic' gnome desktop.

Fair enough, I don't expect everyone to agree.

Both Unity and gnome-shell *need* control of the window manager in order to do what they do.


Forcing users to do things the way some narrow minded group of devs think they should is how Apple and MS do things. We shouldn't be following their example.

This is interesting. It is my opinion that if the developers did everything the users demanded of them, they'd end up with a hugely unfocused mess of a UI (like the Geany preference dialogue). GNOME's whole mantra has always (since 2.0) been "sane defaults". Of course, people can legitimately argue that gnome-shell is "insane", but it's not like GNOME hasn't done this sort of thing before.


I would rather ask whom Gnome Shell is designed for.

Everyone I should hope.

[beew]

. GNOME's whole mantra has always (since 2.0) been "sane defaults". Of course, people can legitimately argue that gnome-shell is "insane", but it's not like GNOME hasn't done this sort of thing before.
.


"Default" can be changed by users. But if there is no option to change the default behaviour then it is locking down.

[bruce89]

"Default" can be changed by users. But if there is no option to change the default behaviour then it is locking down.

And this is different to GNOME's past behaviour in what way?


the daft idea of using Javascript to craft the experience you can likely credit to Havoc, who used to be at Red Hat but now works for netbook startup Litl.

The idea was that a no-library language would be good, since GNOME libraries basically cover everything. Also, Web developers know JS, so that helped. It's by no means the first JS-using program, look at Firefox.


It is in honesty largely a Red Hat driven project, from design to implementation.

http://www.bomahy.nl/hylke/blog/96/

[juancarlospaco]

"Why would you want a way to actively switch through open windows?"


BECAUSE I CAN

Unity ftw.

[Jesus_Valdez]

BECAUSE I CAN

Unity ftw.
I don't see the need of transform this into a flamewar between Shell and Unity.

[NightwishFan]

Amazing product?
That's what my opinion is. Some agree, some don't.
Just give them some damn respect...

Thank you! That is exactly the point.
http://openrespect.org/

Edit: I also do not quite disagree with using JS for the shell. Though that would not have been my first choice.

[Starlight]

I haven't used Unity or Gnome Shell yet, so I can't really say which one is better, but on the screenshots here:

http://www.gnome3.org/

Gnome Shell looks awesome.

[Random_Dude]

Do they still shoot down ideas in the design process, or have they actually become open minded?

"Why would you want a way to actively switch through open windows? You shouldn't have all of your windows maximized anyway."

^ Actual response from Gnome Shell mailing list.

Unity ftw.

I don't understand why did they do that.
It's essential to me to see which windows I have open right on the screen, and I usually have most of them maximized. I'm sure a lot of people do the same, at least most of the people I know do.
Also, I have a laptop with a small screen, so it's not convenient to have 5 or 6 windows open and not maximized.

Cheers :cool:

[Roasted]

Link or it wasn't said. Gmane returns no results.


Well I suppose you'll have to get to googling if you want to see it. I have since deleted the hundreds of Gnome Shell mailing list emails and unsubscribed.



Out of interest, have the Unity developers implemented users' ideas?

To be fair, I have no idea. But I haven't had anything with Unity that I was like ahh damnit that sucks that needs to be changed. In Gnome Shell, I did. The argument was this... the very vast majority of Gnome Shell users felt the need to use a dock with it, as if Gnome Shell wasn't efficient enough to switch through active windows. Oh, you have to go to your other window? Either alt-tab it or go to the upper left corner, zoom out, pick the window, zoom in. As a multitasker, that was a total pain in the ***. When pretty much everybody was suggesting to implement SOME sort of window switcher (like a dock, but not necessarily a dock) the developers said, well, unless you're on a netbook, you shouldn't have your windows full screened anyway, so you should be able to have some areas of each window open on the sides so you can click easier.

Worst. Suggestion. Ever. Right then and there I quit using Gnome Shell and I haven't looked back since.

For the sake of supporting the open source community, I hope they have opened their eyes and began to listen to users. But they killed it for me. I'm glad we got something like Unity, as it's fast, user friendly, and does the job nicely. But hey, my opinion is my opinion. If you like Gnome Shell, use it.

[Pogeymanz]

After all XFCE is basically the same as GNOME2, but by default it installs one panel on the bottom instead of two.


Where in the world do people get this?

Just because Xfce uses GTK for its graphics toolkit does not make it Gnome. If I put a panel on the bottom of my screen, with a main menu button in Gnome, does that make it "basically the same" Windows?

[Lucradia]

Where in the world do people get this?

Just because Xfce uses GTK for its graphics toolkit does not make it Gnome. If I put a panel on the bottom of my screen, with a main menu button in Gnome, does that make it "basically the same" Windows?

A handful of XFCE apps require gconf now, actually. xfconf should be used instead, though. Especially with programs like pidgin.

[Copper Bezel]

You must admit that's a fairly non-standard setup.

That is. Using AWN in place of Gnome Panel is not (unless AWN is itself a "fairly non-standard application.") As an AWN user myself, I hope as well that the Gnome DE continues to support alternative shells, which is essentially what we're talking about, here.

[slackthumbz]

Having built and played with the latest gnome-shell I have to admit it's improved a lot compared to the packages in the maverick repos however there are still 1 or 2 nitpicky issues.

Firstly I still found myself depending on AWN to keep track of my windows across my workspaces, alt-tab is all very well but if you're in bed using a wireless mouse just to surf and the keyboard is a way away then it can become a pain.

I do like the way in which the workspaces have been implemented but I also deplore the lack of a minimise button. Sometimes it's really handy to be able to put a window in a bar somewhere whilst you do something else, ESPECIALLY if you're on a netbook and screen space isn't exactly abundant.

It's a lot faster and the animations are definitely improved compared to the old packages but there are still areas where it feels a little slow (this wasn't a game stopper for me, I'm actually quite impressed by the amount they've improved the performance metrics).

There's still no way to hide that top bar or even simply replace it. I really want to be able to simply use AWN as my primary panel, if we could do away with any kind of forced default panel system and keep the workspaces activation by moving the mouse to the top left corner then that would be just fine.

As it is I'm back to gnome-2.x (sans gnome-panel) with AWN and compiz. When I get back to the UK I'll install the Natty alpha on a spare partition and have another look at Unity.