> remains a huge usability misstep
Evidence? The Gnome project has performed UX studies[0] to validate their design, and has continually made changes in response (some of which I disagree with, FWIW).
Evidence? The Gnome project has performed UX studies[0] to validate their design, and has continually made changes in response (some of which I disagree with, FWIW).
"On the other hand, new users generally got up to speed more quickly with Endless OS, often due to its similarity to Windows. Many of these testers found the bottom panel to be an easy way to switch applications. They also made use of the minimize button. In comparison, both GNOME 3.38 and the prototype generally took more adjustment for these users.
“I really liked that it’s similar to the Windows display that I have.” —Comment on Endless OS by a non-GNOME user"
UX changes always elicit negative opinions and the studies show that once the change is familiar people prefer the new UX.
I’m reminded of the MS ribbon which was so heavily derided but a few years in, OpenOffice/LibreOffice also had to implement something similar because users significantly preferred it when set side by side.
But the bigger problem is that these days, even when it is the case, by the time you get used to the new UX, it's not new anymore - and now it is on the way out, because the new crop of UX designers have yet another drastically different idea in mind (and they have UX studies to prove that it's better). But change itself carries a usability cost with it, and that is usually not accounted for at all. When it comes to desktop software specifically, quite frankly, what we had 20 years ago was already "good enough".
For instance, no button to minimize and maximize a window, no taskbar to switch between windows, what the actual...
Last time i tried GNOME was last week and gave up after a day.
Granted, the applications button icon is quite nondescript (9 dots). But it's still just 2 clicks of prominent UI elements away.
Same # of clicks as Windows (Start -> Program Files) and MacOS (Finder -> Applications).
EDIT: Oh, I guess these are hidden by default? I don't remember enabling them on my setup but I've been using Gnome a few years now. I agree it would be better if they were visible by default.
I'm not saying systematic ways of thinking are universally useless, but the appearance of being "systematic" or "objective" certainly seems to attract some people who use complexity as a means of obfuscating, and of reducing other people to a passive object of study or subject of control. In those cases, "research" isn't a way of finding what's correct. The important thing to them is that they're correct; they already know that they are, and the "studies" are meant to make sure you know it too as they do whatever they already wanted to do anyway.
Such individuals rarely seem to care about "evidence" at the start of their decisions. Only when they're trying to shut down subjective critical opinions, or rationalize the actions they've already taken.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishmen...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversy_over_...
In fact, the same thing is sorta playing out even right now with GTK4 and other GNOME stuff, though I think with somewhat less public spectacle but arguably even larger development efforts behind it:
https://joshuastrobl.com/2021/09/14/building-an-alternative-...
https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/08/system76_developing_n...
https://blog.system76.com/post/closing-in-on-a-cosmic-alpha
https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-desktop/issues/141
https://medium.com/@fulalas/gnome-mess-is-not-an-accident-4e...