PDA

View Full Version : Topaz Makes Sense



wersdaluv
July 15th, 2008, 11:21 AM
It's simple but it makes sense. I just wonder how much the change of the menus are to add to usability now that there are apps like Gnome-Do and Deskbar.

http://browserbookapp.sourceforge.net/topaz/


The tagline is "A First Class Desktop". There are two key ideas:

* Documents are First Class Objects - As a user, I don't want to "Run Firefox" or "Start Evolution". What I really want to do is browse the web and write mail. My applications should be ego-less - my data is the focus.
* Search and Tagging as the Interface - Hierarchical folders are out - it can't handle both "wedding/photos" and "photos/wedding". Also, the current file system makes a distinction between "regular" files and my mail - I can't find the latter using nautilus. In Topaz, search (Beagle) and flat tags (if you've been living under a rock, think GMail labels, Epiphany topics, and del.icio.us) are the main interface to my data.

mcduck
July 15th, 2008, 11:54 AM
I kind of doubt how useful that kind of menu would be for anybody but the most basic user.

For example, there's the option Create/Picture.. What kind of picture? Bitmap image with Gimp? SVG graphics vith Inkscape? PErhaps a 3D graphics rendering with Blender? You still need to be able to select between these and many other options. And if you add a separate entry for them all in the menu you are back to where we are now, with a separate launcher for every program..

Or Create/Text. Simple text fiel with Gedit, or more complex document with OpenOffice?

In the end we'd end with exactly as complex menus with now, only with names of the programs used hidden from the user. Now how would that relate to insalling the aplications needed for these tasks? Would the Add/Remove thing be also cahange to say "Illustration program" instead of Inkscape? Does somebody rwaly imagine that this could be possibly done for every single task people use their computers for? Or would it only be done for the most basic tasks, and those woho want to do something else would end up with a horrible mess in the menu, or perhaps having to add a new menu applet to show those programs? So this UI change would be pnly for basic users, and others would need to start by removing this menu and replacing it with one that works for everything?

Also, opening a temrinal from /Manage/Terminal would make us much sense as the Start/shutdown in Windows.. I bet many poeple would be looking at the Open-menu when told to open a terminal..

What about the difference between opening a web page for browsing, and opening a web page for editing?

In the end, there's a lot of nice ideas, but at the same time there atre lots of thinkgs that would make the desktop quite unusable for more complex tasks. And I don't believe that's the right way to go, I'd rather see a desktop environment that works for both beginners AND expereinced users.

barbedsaber
July 15th, 2008, 11:56 AM
A lot of the stuff looks really cool, but I LIKE my applications menu.
I hope I can keep it, until I am ready to let go.

loell
July 15th, 2008, 11:58 AM
yuck, too sensible for my taste. :lolflag:

wersdaluv
July 15th, 2008, 12:25 PM
I kind of doubt how useful that kind of menu would be for anybody but the most basic user.

For example, there's the option Create/Picture.. What kind of picture? Bitmap image with Gimp? SVG graphics vith Inkscape? PErhaps a 3D graphics rendering with Blender? You still need to be able to select between these and many other options. And if you add a separate entry for them all in the menu you are back to where we are now, with a separate launcher for every program..

Or Create/Text. Simple text fiel with Gedit, or more complex document with OpenOffice?

In the end we'd end with exactly as complex menus with now, only with names of the programs used hidden from the user. Now how would that relate to insalling the aplications needed for these tasks? Would the Add/Remove thing be also cahange to say "Illustration program" instead of Inkscape? Does somebody rwaly imagine that this could be possibly done for every single task people use their computers for? Or would it only be done for the most basic tasks, and those woho want to do something else would end up with a horrible mess in the menu, or perhaps having to add a new menu applet to show those programs? So this UI change would be pnly for basic users, and others would need to start by removing this menu and replacing it with one that works for everything?

Also, opening a temrinal from /Manage/Terminal would make us much sense as the Start/shutdown in Windows.. I bet many poeple would be looking at the Open-menu when told to open a terminal..

What about the difference between opening a web page for browsing, and opening a web page for editing?

In the end, there's a lot of nice ideas, but at the same time there atre lots of thinkgs that would make the desktop quite unusable for more complex tasks. And I don't believe that's the right way to go, I'd rather see a desktop environment that works for both beginners AND expereinced users.

That's just a mockup. Of course, there will be more submenus and other details that are not exposed yet. This concept is just a work in progress after all.

wersdaluv
July 15th, 2008, 12:27 PM
yuck, too sensible for my taste. :lolflag:
Is there such a thing as too much sensibility? Hehe

madjr
July 15th, 2008, 05:14 PM
It's simple but it makes sense. I just wonder how much the change of the menus are to add to usability now that there are apps like Gnome-Do and Deskbar.

http://browserbookapp.sourceforge.net/topaz/

"open" , "create", "manage"

this is a simpler version of gimmie

if anyone wanted this applet would had been created already, i don't see it being hard to make.

they explain topaz here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080714-gnome-3-0-officially-announced-and-explained.html

i don't see this as WOW, i just see it as a simple applet you could add or remove.

geoken
July 15th, 2008, 05:43 PM
Seems like a bad idea. As per the author, adding an app like inkscape will put a new entry in the 'create' menu called illustration (or something along those lines).

This is a horrible idea. The reason we have sub menus is because we have too many apps to use a flat menu. I use rhythmbox for listening to my music, amarok for it's great device syncing abilities and BMPx for great online support. I also use 3 video players for various types of video content and at least 5 different IDE's/editors for coding. Then I need on app for photo viewing and one for photo library management. My point is that the flat menu will turn into a massive, unorganized, multi-pane mess.

wersdaluv
July 15th, 2008, 11:11 PM
"open" , "create", "manage"

this is a simpler version of gimmie

if anyone wanted this applet would had been created already, i don't see it being hard to make.

they explain topaz here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080714-gnome-3-0-officially-announced-and-explained.html

i don't see this as WOW, i just see it as a simple applet you could add or remove.

It's not just like gimmie. It would change the way apps are ran even with other means (like keystroke launcher) and how they are closed. It could also run only fragments of apps depending on what action one chooses to do. This is just a hypothesis though, since topaz doesn't exist yet.

What is sure is that it would change how a user views the desktop and that is a radical change. That can't be done just by one applet. Gimmie tried to do that but it didn't do it well. It's a complex idea.

Polygon
July 16th, 2008, 12:34 AM
that little thing on the bottom right with the gears, showing a download, progress on printing a page, etc, thats from KDE, trying to put all the progress bars into one section, i can see that being useful in some aspects...but not all.

and the address book thing looks cool if that could be integrated into mail programs and whatnot.

and the new menu would be good if it was an option to switch between the one we have now and the that one, since the topaz one looks like its better suited for people who have 'no' knowledge of computers whatsoever

madjr
July 16th, 2008, 03:02 AM
It's not just like gimmie. It would change the way apps are ran even with other means (like keystroke launcher) and how they are closed. It could also run only fragments of apps depending on what action one chooses to do. This is just a hypothesis though, since topaz doesn't exist yet.

What is sure is that it would change how a user views the desktop and that is a radical change. That can't be done just by one applet. Gimmie tried to do that but it didn't do it well. It's a complex idea.

gimmie is not ready yet, is buggy buggy and crashes often.

also i've been seen some gimmie "2.0" mockups at the ibex theme section

anyway, big changes to gnome are not something that would be welcome

people don't like radical changes or like to re-learn stuff, unless it' fixes a big problem for them.

i think the gnome devs will do good by not introducing too much stuff, just needed improvements, bug fixes and making the UI nicer looking.

zachtib
July 16th, 2008, 03:35 AM
This is certainly an interesting concept, however it won't be Gnome 3.0, it's way too different. If someone wanted, they should start an independent project as a completely new DE (could even call it Topaz Desktop Environment if they wanted :P)

madjr
July 16th, 2008, 04:14 AM
This is certainly an interesting concept, however it won't be Gnome 3.0, it's way too different. If someone wanted, they should start an independent project as a completely new DE (could even call it Topaz Desktop Environment if they wanted :P)

i don't think is worth a fork just for 1 or 2 applets

isnt it better just to create this applets?

zachtib
July 16th, 2008, 05:31 AM
i don't think is worth a fork just for 1 or 2 applets

isnt it better just to create this applets?

i don't know if it's just a few applets, and i'm not necessarily thinking of a fork, but a separate DE, like Xfce. Something lightweight with a "different" approach to the desktop

madjr
July 16th, 2008, 05:49 AM
i don't know if it's just a few applets, and i'm not necessarily thinking of a fork, but a separate DE, like Xfce. Something lightweight with a "different" approach to the desktop

it would be better if they try creating these applets first.

by just removing or adding applets/panels you can make gnome have any "approach" you want and it's hell easier to maintain.

then if they want to go even further more radical, then they could start a separate project.

imagine gimmie devs forking gnome just to make their menu and a few small stuff..

geoken
July 16th, 2008, 06:11 AM
It's not just like gimmie. It would change the way apps are ran even with other means (like keystroke launcher) and how they are closed. It could also run only fragments of apps depending on what action one chooses to do. This is just a hypothesis though, since topaz doesn't exist yet.

What is sure is that it would change how a user views the desktop and that is a radical change. That can't be done just by one applet. Gimmie tried to do that but it didn't do it well. It's a complex idea.

Why can't a panel applet do that? An example would be the clock/calendar applet which loads appointments from evolution. It would be just as easy to load data from evolutions contact list.

K.Mandla
July 16th, 2008, 07:46 AM
Meh, I don't dig it. But I'll save my mean and abrasive anti-Gnome rants for elsewhere. :)

frup
July 16th, 2008, 08:22 AM
If that became gnome I would be using KDE or XFCE faster than I blink.

On the other hand if that became a mode gnome could run in, and toggling between standard gnome and document mode was done by a panel applet, I might have some use for it.

But for some reason I just don't think that would help new users use gnome. It might help completely new computer users, but anyone who had used anything else would be irritated (IMHO), if that was default i would shudder.

Anyway, what most people seem to complain about is theming and lack of configuration. :S