5:30 p.m.
Hello,
back in November in filled a bug about F20 (then in beta) not having screen
shield in the login screen (obviously when running gdm). I'm not completely
sure, but I think this explains why my monitors do not enter in power save
mode after I logout. This worked in F19 and before.
Has anyone else experienced this problem?
Fedora bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027700
Gnome bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=715000
Regards, Sergio
5:36 p.m.
The shield is something I have always considered to be pointless and
confusing to new users. I teach Linux at a local college and when we use
Fedora, I always have to explain the shield. For some reasons the shield is
confusing to them.
For me its just utterly pointless. I have yet to get an explanation as to
why its there. It just adds another step in logging in to my machine.
On Jan 12, 2014 6:30 PM, "Sergio Pascual" <sergio.pasra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
back in November in filled a bug about F20 (then in beta) not having
screen shield in the login screen (obviously when running gdm). I'm not
completely sure, but I think this explains why my monitors do not enter in
power save mode after I logout. This worked in F19 and before.
Has anyone else experienced this problem?
Fedora bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027700
Gnome bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=715000
Regards, Sergio
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
5:46 p.m.
2014/1/13 Lynn Dixon <boodaddy(a)gmail.com>
The shield is something I have always considered to be pointless and
confusing to new users. I teach Linux at a local college and when we use
Fedora, I always have to explain the shield. For some reasons the shield is
confusing to them.
It seems to me that not having the shield breaks the power saving feature
of the monitors. It's power saving what I want back.
12:52 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
The shield is something I have always considered to be pointless and
confusing to new users. I teach Linux at a local college and when we use
Fedora, I always have to explain the shield. For some reasons the shield is
confusing to them.
You're not explaining it well then, because a lot of your students will
already have seen similar screens on their mobile phones or tablets.
For me its just utterly pointless. I have yet to get an explanation
as to
why its there. It just adds another step in logging in to my machine.
I suggest you look at the discussions on fedora-devel list about this
same topic.
7:28 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 01:52:40AM -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> The shield is something I have always considered to be pointless
and
> confusing to new users. I teach Linux at a local college and when we use
> Fedora, I always have to explain the shield. For some reasons the shield is
> confusing to them.
You're not explaining it well then, because a lot of your students will
already have seen similar screens on their mobile phones or tablets.
That's the theory, but if new users aren't getting it intuitively -- and
there is repeated, even if anecdotal, evidence that that's the case -- then
blaming them doesn't help *us*. Something clearly needs to change in the
design.
> For me its just utterly pointless. I have yet to get an
explanation as to
> why its there. It just adds another step in logging in to my machine.
I suggest you look at the discussions on fedora-devel list about this
same topic.
That will yield basically the same results -- people who were confused, or
saw other people confused, or don't see the point, occasionally answered by
statements that nothing will change.
So that doesn't seem to be very constructive. I think that's really
unfortunate -- this is clearly one of those points of user interface pain
that it would be to our benefit to address.
--
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
8:05 a.m.
Matthew Miller writes:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 01:52:40AM -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > The shield is something I have always considered to be pointless and
> > confusing to new users. I teach Linux at a local college and when we use
> > Fedora, I always have to explain the shield. For some reasons the shield is
> > confusing to them.
> You're not explaining it well then, because a lot of your students will
> already have seen similar screens on their mobile phones or tablets.
That's the theory, but if new users aren't getting it intuitively -- and
there is repeated, even if anecdotal, evidence that that's the case -- then
blaming them doesn't help *us*. Something clearly needs to change in the
design.
Some more anecdotal evindence: my wife, a nontechnical user accustomed
to using Windows at work, got rather desperate about the screen
shield, rebooting the machine whenever it appeared and accusing me of
breaking her computer...
Sure, it was a quick thing to sort out, but I fail to get the point of
it.
As for the comparison with mobile phones: my Android device has a
function that superficially looks like it, but it acts as an expanded
notification list with direct navigation to the application which
triggered the notification, so it has a function which is immediately
logical and useful. For the Gnome equivalent, the usefulness (if any)
is not obvious from direct inspection.
Finally, the mouse movement necessary to remove the shield on the
login screen seems a bit unnatural for a mouse/trackpad motion, to me
it feels like a touchscreen type of thing.
> > For me its just utterly pointless. I have yet to get an
explanation as to
> > why its there. It just adds another step in logging in to my machine.
> I suggest you look at the discussions on fedora-devel list about this
> same topic.
That will yield basically the same results -- people who were confused, or
saw other people confused, or don't see the point, occasionally answered by
statements that nothing will change.
So that doesn't seem to be very constructive. I think that's really
unfortunate -- this is clearly one of those points of user interface pain
that it would be to our benefit to address.
This all is a really minor point, of course, hardly worth attention,
if there was not the persistent issue of user interface changes
implemented seemingly in pursuit of a grand artistic mission, but with
very little thought of how the thing is actually going to be used by
the broader public.
--Marcel
8:14 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/13/2014 09:05 AM, Marcel Oliver wrote:
Matthew Miller writes:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 01:52:40AM -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>> The shield is something I have always considered to be
>>> pointless and confusing to new users. I teach Linux at a
>>> local college and when we use Fedora, I always have to
>>> explain the shield. For some reasons the shield is confusing
>>> to them.
>> You're not explaining it well then, because a lot of your
>> students will already have seen similar screens on their mobile
>> phones or tablets.
>
> That's the theory, but if new users aren't getting it intuitively
> -- and there is repeated, even if anecdotal, evidence that that's
> the case -- then blaming them doesn't help *us*. Something
> clearly needs to change in the design.
Some more anecdotal evindence: my wife, a nontechnical user
accustomed to using Windows at work, got rather desperate about the
screen shield, rebooting the machine whenever it appeared and
accusing me of breaking her computer...
Sure, it was a quick thing to sort out, but I fail to get the point
of it.
As for the comparison with mobile phones: my Android device has a
function that superficially looks like it, but it acts as an
expanded notification list with direct navigation to the
application which triggered the notification, so it has a function
which is immediately logical and useful. For the Gnome equivalent,
the usefulness (if any) is not obvious from direct inspection.
Finally, the mouse movement necessary to remove the shield on the
login screen seems a bit unnatural for a mouse/trackpad motion, to
me it feels like a touchscreen type of thing.
Just to be pedantic, any keyboard activity will automatically move the
shield out of the way (it's been this way since F19, IIRC).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlLT9OEACgkQeiVVYja6o6OwNQCcDTTxPJyipN2zcjxFf1Mudecx
PDUAn3J0z2syyu9RkNcT7T9F+cQAApoC
=+ePR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:47 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 09:14:57AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Finally, the mouse movement necessary to remove the shield on
the login
> screen seems a bit unnatural for a mouse/trackpad motion, to me it feels
> like a touchscreen type of thing.
Just to be pedantic, any keyboard activity will automatically move the
shield out of the way (it's been this way since F19, IIRC).
This isn't quite the case -- I tested this in F20, and it is still
unresponsibe to Shift, Ctrl, or Alt. This causes a particularly ironic
problem, since many of us learned that these are the keys that should always
be used to clear a screensaver, because anything else might inadvertently
get passed through to an application "below". (And honestly, I think that's
still good advice that the currently design undermines.)
--
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
8:56 a.m.
Stephen Gallagher writes:
Just to be pedantic, any keyboard activity will automatically move
the
shield out of the way (it's been this way since F19, IIRC).
Interesting, thanks for pointing this out! As I now realize, I have
the long-time habit of getting out of a screensaver by hitting a SHIFT
key (to avoid to potentially sending actual keystrokes to windows that
I don't yet see.) I have a strong reluctance to press any key if I
don't see a cursor where the input is going. Is that old-fashioned?
But the shield does not react to SHIFT. That's why I started
fiddling with the mouse instead.
So maybe the shield should listen to the same keys the screensaver
does? That still doesn't explain the sense of it, but anyway...
--Marcel
8:19 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Marcel Oliver <
m.oliver(a)jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > > For me its just utterly pointless. I have yet to get an explanation
as to
> > > why its there. It just adds another step in logging in to my
machine.
> > I suggest you look at the discussions on fedora-devel list about this
> > same topic.
>
> That will yield basically the same results -- people who were confused,
or
> saw other people confused, or don't see the point, occasionally
answered by
> statements that nothing will change.
>
> So that doesn't seem to be very constructive. I think that's really
> unfortunate -- this is clearly one of those points of user interface
pain
> that it would be to our benefit to address.
This all is a really minor point, of course, hardly worth attention,
if there was not the persistent issue of user interface changes
implemented seemingly in pursuit of a grand artistic mission, but with
very little thought of how the thing is actually going to be used by
the broader public.
That's not fair or correct, the Gnome developers put a great deal of
thought into the hundreds of decisions they make. The evolution of Gnome 3
throughout its 6 releases also shows that they take user feedback quite
seriously.
--
Evandro
8:27 a.m.
Evandro,
I am not sure if that was sarcasm, or not. I admit, I have only been
participating in Fedora for a small while, but the general Linux populus
seems to think otherwise?
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Evandro Giovanini <efgiovanini(a)gmail.com>wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Marcel Oliver <
m.oliver(a)jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> > > > For me its just utterly pointless. I have yet to get an
> explanation as to
> > > > why its there. It just adds another step in logging in to my
> machine.
> > > I suggest you look at the discussions on fedora-devel list about this
> > > same topic.
> >
> > That will yield basically the same results -- people who were
> confused, or
> > saw other people confused, or don't see the point, occasionally
> answered by
> > statements that nothing will change.
> >
> > So that doesn't seem to be very constructive. I think that's really
> > unfortunate -- this is clearly one of those points of user interface
> pain
> > that it would be to our benefit to address.
>
> This all is a really minor point, of course, hardly worth attention,
> if there was not the persistent issue of user interface changes
> implemented seemingly in pursuit of a grand artistic mission, but with
> very little thought of how the thing is actually going to be used by
> the broader public.
>
>
That's not fair or correct, the Gnome developers put a great deal of
thought into the hundreds of decisions they make. The evolution of Gnome 3
throughout its 6 releases also shows that they take user feedback quite
seriously.
--
Evandro
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
8:56 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Lynn Dixon <boodaddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Evandro,
I am not sure if that was sarcasm, or not. I admit, I have only been
participating in Fedora for a small while, but the general Linux populus
seems to think otherwise?
No, that was not sarcasm. I think you might be confusing a small number of
vocal users with the "general" Linux populous though. The reactions to
Gnome 3 from most people I know is actually incredibly positive, it's a
beautiful and elegant interface.
--
Evandro
9:48 a.m.
Evandro Giovanini writes:
This all is a really minor point, of course, hardly worth
attention, if there was not the persistent issue of user
interface changes implemented seemingly in pursuit of a grand
artistic mission, but with very little thought of how the thing
is actually going to be used by the broader public.
That's not fair or correct, the Gnome developers put a great deal
of thought into the hundreds of decisions they make. The evolution
of Gnome 3 throughout its 6 releases also shows that they take user
feedback quite seriously.
My experience differs from yours in this regard. First, I resent the
publicly documented mindset that imposes a certain work model to the
exclusion of all others. I have commented on specific aspects in the
past and will not repeat this here.
Second, there is the simple fact that changes in the UI always cause
friction. We learn to perform most simple tasks subconsciously, and
any change of the routine will be distracting. So changes should only
be introduced when the benefit clearly exceeds the cost of
transitioning. Three very trivial examples where I think this balance
is at least questionable:
1. In F20, the text "Session" on the login screen has changed to a
small cog wheel icon and moved from the left hand button to the right
hand button (maybe these swapped functions as well, I don't remember
because I always press enter after typing the password, so I don't
know where the login button used to be). Sure, it looks nicer, but it
breaks all documentation which says "you can get a list of available
user sessions by clicking Session". It's also less self-explanatory,
and moving it to a different place from where it was before also
breaks the spatial memory between the previous and the last version.
2. Some versions ago, Gnome developers apparently decided that
right-aligned pull down menus are better than left-aligned ones.
Evince consequently moved all the pull down menus to the right, but
left other dialog boxes left-aligned, leading to a horrible UI
experience as one would have needed to travel across the entire width
of the window for a simultaneous change of magnification and view mode.
I had filed a bug right after this appeared, which only got fixed with
F20. (In the mean time, I dropped using evince altogether realizing
how much better an application okular has become.)
3. Starting with F20, certain system applications don't display a
window title bar any longer. That's probably not a change for the
workflow imposed by default Gnome, but breaks workflow in Gnome
Classic (and cinnamon for that matter), where suddenly one has to use
the panel to minimize applications like System Monitor. Again, a
change with no obvious gain (except minor aesthetic value which I do
see), but putting up hurdles for well established UI habits. (With
System Monitor, minimizing is logically different from restarting as
the former keeps the last minute of history, so it's possible to raise
the window if something is funny and look at the most recent activity
record.)
I have intentionally not commented on the bigger picture of Gnome 3,
which I see as a very mixed blessing. I am talking about trivial
stuff where the change as such is neither clearly good nor bad, not
very important, but does cause irritation and seriously begs the
question WHAT IS THE POINT?
--Marcel
2:16 p.m.
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 01:52 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> The shield is something I have always considered to be pointless and
> confusing to new users. I teach Linux at a local college and when we use
> Fedora, I always have to explain the shield. For some reasons the shield is
> confusing to them.
You're not explaining it well then, because a lot of your students will
already have seen similar screens on their mobile phones or tablets.
...where they have an actual point, which is to prevent accidental
interaction with a 'live' interface 'behind' them.
If the 'live' interface behind the shield is a password entry dialog
which it's very unlikely you'll be able to do anything damaging to
accidentally, and the OS is running on a device where accidental
interaction with a UI is unlikely, it is unclear what benefit the shield
is providing to anyone.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:22 p.m.
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:16 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 01:52 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > The shield is something I have always considered to be pointless and
> > confusing to new users. I teach Linux at a local college and when we use
> > Fedora, I always have to explain the shield. For some reasons the shield is
> > confusing to them.
>
> You're not explaining it well then, because a lot of your students will
> already have seen similar screens on their mobile phones or tablets.
...where they have an actual point, which is to prevent accidental
interaction with a 'live' interface 'behind' them.
If the 'live' interface behind the shield is a password entry dialog
which it's very unlikely you'll be able to do anything damaging to
accidentally, and the OS is running on a device where accidental
interaction with a UI is unlikely, it is unclear what benefit the shield
is providing to anyone.
Further note that on Android this behaviour is configurable, and I've
noticed that it's fairly common for people to configure it the way I do:
if you enable some form of actual device locking (a PIN, pattern lock,
whatever), you disable the 'shield' lock screen so you don't have to
double-unlock. I have my phone encrypted and set to always lock on idle
or power button press, so I have the 'drag across to unlock' shield-y
screen disabled as it serves no purpose for me, and just have the actual
unlock screen (PIN lock) do dual duty.
What GNOME currently has looks a lot like mandatory double-unlocking, to
no obvious purpose: yes, you can clear the shield by hitting any
'active' key, but most people do not appear to have got this message,
seeing as how these threads keep happening and we keep having to tell
people this fact directly (which is a method of information transmission
that doesn't really scale terribly well).
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:32 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:16 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 01:52 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > The shield is something I have always considered to be pointless and
> > > confusing to new users. I teach Linux at a local college and when we use
> > > Fedora, I always have to explain the shield. For some reasons the shield
is
> > > confusing to them.
> >
> > You're not explaining it well then, because a lot of your students will
> > already have seen similar screens on their mobile phones or tablets.
>
> ...where they have an actual point, which is to prevent accidental
> interaction with a 'live' interface 'behind' them.
>
> If the 'live' interface behind the shield is a password entry dialog
> which it's very unlikely you'll be able to do anything damaging to
> accidentally, and the OS is running on a device where accidental
> interaction with a UI is unlikely, it is unclear what benefit the shield
> is providing to anyone.
Further note that on Android this behaviour is configurable, and I've
noticed that it's fairly common for people to configure it the way I do:
if you enable some form of actual device locking (a PIN, pattern lock,
whatever), you disable the 'shield' lock screen so you don't have to
double-unlock. I have my phone encrypted and set to always lock on idle
or power button press, so I have the 'drag across to unlock' shield-y
screen disabled as it serves no purpose for me, and just have the actual
unlock screen (PIN lock) do dual duty.
What GNOME currently has looks a lot like mandatory double-unlocking, to
no obvious purpose: yes, you can clear the shield by hitting any
'active' key, but most people do not appear to have got this message,
seeing as how these threads keep happening and we keep having to tell
people this fact directly (which is a method of information transmission
that doesn't really scale terribly well).
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722113
2:34 p.m.
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:22 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> ...where they have an actual point, which is to prevent
accidental
> interaction with a 'live' interface 'behind' them.
>
> If the 'live' interface behind the shield is a password entry dialog
> which it's very unlikely you'll be able to do anything damaging to
> accidentally, and the OS is running on a device where accidental
> interaction with a UI is unlikely, it is unclear what benefit the shield
> is providing to anyone.
Further note that on Android this behaviour is configurable, and I've
noticed that it's fairly common for people to configure it the way I do:
if you enable some form of actual device locking (a PIN, pattern lock,
whatever), you disable the 'shield' lock screen so you don't have to
double-unlock. I have my phone encrypted and set to always lock on idle
or power button press, so I have the 'drag across to unlock' shield-y
screen disabled as it serves no purpose for me, and just have the actual
unlock screen (PIN lock) do dual duty.
What GNOME currently has looks a lot like mandatory double-unlocking, to
no obvious purpose: yes, you can clear the shield by hitting any
'active' key, but most people do not appear to have got this message,
seeing as how these threads keep happening and we keep having to tell
people this fact directly (which is a method of information transmission
that doesn't really scale terribly well).
In case anyone is looking for the reference, btw, the 'shield' design
appears to be documented at:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/OS/ScreenLock
it defines the objectives as:
Shield system from stray taps and clicks when locked
Protect the security of the user's session
Display important system status information (battery, network)
Display the name of the user
Display the current time
Display important (defined by the user) notifications
Display urgent system notifications (low power)
Display personalized user content (background image)
Provide access to media controls
Provide access to display (brightness, etc) controls
Use the preferred language, keyboard, and input methods for the user
The page doesn't seem to explain _particularly_ clearly (at least, by my
reading) what the shield/curtain actually provides that the "real" lock
screen doesn't, when the user has a password or other form of actual
lock mechanism to complete before actually accessing the running
desktop.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
3749
days inactive
3750
days old
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
16 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Adam Williamson -
Bastien Nocera -
drago01 -
Evandro Giovanini -
Lynn Dixon -
Marcel Oliver -
Matthew Miller -
Sergio Pascual -
Stephen Gallagher