10:53 a.m.
The kde-sig is seeking feedback on f16's plasma-desktop (and potentially
other containments) default layout.
In particular, prior to kde-4.7.x, the default was basically an empty
desktop with a sole folderview widget. Now in kde47, the default is
even emptier, without even folderview.
So, we were close to deciding simply putting a folderview back as
default, but I thought we could brainstorm for even better ideas. What
do you all think?
See also,
http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
-- rex
11:16 a.m.
On Tuesday 23 Aug 2011 Rex Dieter wrote:
The kde-sig is seeking feedback on f16's plasma-desktop (and
potentially
other containments) default layout.
In particular, prior to kde-4.7.x, the default was basically an empty
desktop with a sole folderview widget. Now in kde47, the default is
even emptier, without even folderview.
So, we were close to deciding simply putting a folderview back as
default, but I thought we could brainstorm for even better ideas. What
do you all think?
See also,
http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
Not having a facebook account, I can't read that. My own opinion is that if
you don't want a folderview it's simple to delete it, whereas if the desktop
is empty and you do want one it's less obvious how to get one - for someone
new to plasma, I mean. Of course that doesn't allow for those that want the
desktop to *be* a folderview :-) but that's another story.
Anne
2:30 a.m.
On Tuesday 23 Aug 2011 Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Now in kde47, the default is even emptier, without even folderview.
Saves me the work of deleting folderview.
I don't like folderview, after all, I have Dolphin. I like an empty
desktop... no clutter.
So do I, but instant access to a mounted remote drive is wonderful. Still,
that may not be the needs of most people.
Anne
3:03 p.m.
On Tuesday 23 Aug 2011 16:53:28 Rex Dieter wrote:
The kde-sig is seeking feedback on f16's plasma-desktop (and
potentially
other containments) default layout.
In particular, prior to kde-4.7.x, the default was basically an empty
desktop with a sole folderview widget. Now in kde47, the default is
even emptier, without even folderview.
So, we were close to deciding simply putting a folderview back as
default, but I thought we could brainstorm for even better ideas. What
do you all think?
See also,
http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
Sorry don't have/use FB so I can't look at that..
IMO I think you should keep folderview on the default Desktop like previous
releases and if for some reason the user does not want it it's easy to remove.
A blank Desktop could cause confusion to new 4.x users.
Colin
--
Fedora 15 (Lovelock)
Registered Linux user number #342953
9:33 p.m.
Rex Dieter wrote:
It would help if you reproduced that poll's options here, since Facebook is
banning us non-Facebook-users from even viewing it…
Kevin Kofler
10:01 p.m.
On 08/23/2011 10:33 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
> See also,
> http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
It would help if you reproduced that poll's options here, since Facebook is
banning us non-Facebook-users from even viewing it…
Or perhaps see if people are more open to Google+ as I too view
facebook as not somewhere I want my info to be.
12:25 p.m.
Rex Dieter wrote:
> See also,
> http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
It would help if you reproduced that poll's options here, since Facebook is
banning us non-Facebook-users from even viewing it…
fwiw, the options there were essentially as I posed it here
1. stick with empty desktop, no widgets (upstream default)
2. revert back to pre kde-4.7 setup, with folderview widget
3. (kevin's favorite. :) ) use folderview *layout*, full screen, aka like kde3
times.
-- rex
5:31 p.m.
My personal preference would be an empty desktop. The first thing I did in
previous versions was remove the folderview.
On 25 August 2011 03:25, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>> See also,
>> http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
>
> It would help if you reproduced that poll's options here, since Facebook
is
> banning us non-Facebook-users from even viewing it…
fwiw, the options there were essentially as I posed it here
1. stick with empty desktop, no widgets (upstream default)
2. revert back to pre kde-4.7 setup, with folderview widget
3. (kevin's favorite. :) ) use folderview *layout*, full screen, aka like
kde3 times.
-- rex
_______________________________________________
kde mailing list
kde(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde
New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
4:08 a.m.
On Wednesday 24 Aug 2011 Jim Dean wrote:
My personal preference would be an empty desktop. The first thing I
did in
previous versions was remove the folderview.
It concerns me a little that all who advocate the empty desktop are
experienced users. My thought is for those coming new to KDE.
Anne
9:48 a.m.
Anne Wilson wrote:
It concerns me a little that all who advocate the empty desktop are
experienced users. My thought is for those coming new to KDE.
Does windows have a 'folder view' on it's desktop? I've never seen one.
In fact, their windows explorer, the file manager, is so hard to find,
under layers of menu categories. I don't think they really want you to
use it, but how do they expect one to locate files? No need to answer
that question: it's rhetorical.
11:08 a.m.
On Thursday 25 Aug 2011 Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
> It concerns me a little that all who advocate the empty desktop are
> experienced users. My thought is for those coming new to KDE.
Does windows have a 'folder view' on it's desktop? I've never seen one.
In fact, their windows explorer, the file manager, is so hard to find,
under layers of menu categories. I don't think they really want you to
use it, but how do they expect one to locate files? No need to answer
that question: it's rhetorical.
FWIW, I know people who can't find files at all once they are no longer in a
Recent Files list :-)
Anne
11:48 a.m.
Anne Wilson wrote:
I know people who can't find files at all once they are no longer
in a
Recent Files list :-)
That's what the windows paradigm does to computer users. Files are
placed into virtual directories like 'my this' and 'my that', so people
haven't got a clue where they really are located on their hard drives
(and how can they be expected to back anything up when they can't even
find it?). When you ask them, they say it's in itunes or it's in the
media player, as if the file were inside the program somewhere ;-)
12:24 p.m.
On Thursday 25 Aug 2011 Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
> I know people who can't find files at all once they are no longer in a
> Recent Files list :-)
That's what the windows paradigm does to computer users. Files are
placed into virtual directories like 'my this' and 'my that', so people
haven't got a clue where they really are located on their hard drives
(and how can they be expected to back anything up when they can't even
find it?). When you ask them, they say it's in itunes or it's in the
media player, as if the file were inside the program somewhere ;-)
No-one denies that, but this is real life. If you want to help and educate
people you don't do it by giving them something so blank that they haven't a
clue where to start.
Anne
12:54 p.m.
On Friday 26 Aug 2011 18:24:21 Anne Wilson wrote:
On Thursday 25 Aug 2011 Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Anne Wilson wrote:
> > I know people who can't find files at all once they are no longer in a
> > Recent Files list :-)
>
> That's what the windows paradigm does to computer users. Files are
> placed into virtual directories like 'my this' and 'my that', so
people
> haven't got a clue where they really are located on their hard drives
> (and how can they be expected to back anything up when they can't even
> find it?). When you ask them, they say it's in itunes or it's in the
> media player, as if the file were inside the program somewhere ;-)
No-one denies that, but this is real life. If you want to help and educate
people you don't do it by giving them something so blank that they haven't
a clue where to start.
FWIW I agree 100% with Anne, all those on here suggesting a blank Desktop is
best are the experienced 4.x users not new user's.
In the end a blank Desktop will lead to a lot of confusion and questions which
then leads to unnecessary work/questions for those involved with KDE.
Colin
--
Fedora 15 (Lovelock)
Registered Linux user number #342953
5:52 p.m.
Is a blank folderview much different to a blank desktop? It is just a box
sitting on the desktop.
If it contained something useful or helpful that might be different.
On 27 August 2011 03:54, Colin J Thomson <colin(a)g6avk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Friday 26 Aug 2011 18:24:21 Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Thursday 25 Aug 2011 Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> > Anne Wilson wrote:
> > > I know people who can't find files at all once they are no longer in
a
> > > Recent Files list :-)
> >
> > That's what the windows paradigm does to computer users. Files are
> > placed into virtual directories like 'my this' and 'my that',
so people
> > haven't got a clue where they really are located on their hard drives
> > (and how can they be expected to back anything up when they can't even
> > find it?). When you ask them, they say it's in itunes or it's in the
> > media player, as if the file were inside the program somewhere ;-)
>
> No-one denies that, but this is real life. If you want to help and
educate
> people you don't do it by giving them something so blank that they
haven't
> a clue where to start.
FWIW I agree 100% with Anne, all those on here suggesting a blank Desktop
is
best are the experienced 4.x users not new user's.
In the end a blank Desktop will lead to a lot of confusion and questions
which
then leads to unnecessary work/questions for those involved with KDE.
Colin
--
Fedora 15 (Lovelock)
Registered Linux user number #342953
_______________________________________________
kde mailing list
kde(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde
New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
3:45 a.m.
On Friday 26 Aug 2011 Jim Dean wrote:
Is a blank folderview much different to a blank desktop? It is just a
box
sitting on the desktop.
If it contained something useful or helpful that might be different.
Huh? How do you manage to get a blank folderview? By default it points to
/home/you. You'd have to actually change the point to an empty directory to
see a blank one - we are talking about what people see by default.
Anne
4:48 p.m.
Anne Wilson wrote:
Huh? How do you manage to get a blank folderview? By default it
points
to /home/you.
No. By default, it points to /home/`whoami`/Desktop, which is empty by
default. (There used to be some default entries in the good old RHL days,
but these days, there aren't any, except for the live image, which has
liveinst there by default.) We could probably ship some default entries in
some kde-sig-default-desktop package (though I'm not sure about where to
install them too: I guess /etc/skel/Desktop, but xdg-user-dirs also
translates the directory names, plus I don't know if /etc/skel isn't
supposed to be reserved for the local admin, it's empty in current Fedora),
but it'd affect all desktops if installed.
Kevin Kofler
4:34 a.m.
On Saturday 27 Aug 2011 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
> Huh? How do you manage to get a blank folderview? By default it points
> to /home/you.
No. By default, it points to /home/`whoami`/Desktop, which is empty by
default. (There used to be some default entries in the good old RHL days,
but these days, there aren't any, except for the live image, which has
liveinst there by default.) We could probably ship some default entries in
some kde-sig-default-desktop package (though I'm not sure about where to
install them too: I guess /etc/skel/Desktop, but xdg-user-dirs also
translates the directory names, plus I don't know if /etc/skel isn't
supposed to be reserved for the local admin, it's empty in current Fedora),
but it'd affect all desktops if installed.
Apologies, then. Since the first thing I do is reset the folderview to a
remote directory I never really see the default.
IIRC the old desktop used to have links to ~/ and Trash - I guess having those
on the desktop by default would work well for many people.
Anne
6:47 p.m.
2011/8/28 Anne Wilson <cannewilson(a)googlemail.com>:
IIRC the old desktop used to have links to ~/ and Trash - I guess
having those
on the desktop by default would work well for many people.
That's what you get by default if you set desktop as folderview on a
fresh install box.
--
“The collaborative manner in which open source software is developed
shows the true potential of humanity if we all work together towards a
common goal.”
--
Maximiliano Alvisto De León
3:17 a.m.
On Monday 29 Aug 2011 Maximiliano Alvisto De León wrote:
2011/8/28 Anne Wilson <cannewilson(a)googlemail.com>:
> IIRC the old desktop used to have links to ~/ and Trash - I guess having
> those on the desktop by default would work well for many people.
That's what you get by default if you set desktop as folderview on a
fresh install box.
Now I'm really confused so I made a new folderview to see what really happens
in Fedora 14. It opens at ~/. Now my home has a lot of entries as it has
been used for a long time, but I would have thought that Documents and Desktop
at least, with possible Music and Pictures (those don't sound like names I
would have used) showing. Trash of course doesn't show there, as it is in a
subdirectory. Is it really true that the default folderview doesn't show any
entries at all?
Anne
8:01 p.m.
Anne Wilson wrote:
Now I'm really confused so I made a new folderview to see what
really
happens in Fedora 14. It opens at ~/.
The folder view widget itself defaults to ~, but the default layout script
in 4.6 was explicitly setting the folder of the folder view created by
default to ~/Desktop.
Kevin Kofler
3:28 a.m.
On Tuesday 30 Aug 2011 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
> Now I'm really confused so I made a new folderview to see what really
> happens in Fedora 14. It opens at ~/.
The folder view widget itself defaults to ~, but the default layout script
in 4.6 was explicitly setting the folder of the folder view created by
default to ~/Desktop.
Even more confused, then :-) because I'm running 4.6.5, and it opened at ~.
Maybe it's something in my personal settings. <Sigh> It's so difficult to
make
sensible comment when so many things affect the situation.
Anne
5:40 a.m.
Anne Wilson ha scritto:
On Tuesday 30 Aug 2011 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Anne Wilson wrote:
>> Now I'm really confused so I made a new folderview to see what really
>> happens in Fedora 14. It opens at ~/.
> The folder view widget itself defaults to ~, but the default layout script
> in 4.6 was explicitly setting the folder of the folder view created by
> default to ~/Desktop.
>
Even more confused, then :-) because I'm running 4.6.5, and it opened at ~.
Maybe it's something in my personal settings. <Sigh> It's so difficult to
make
sensible comment when so many things affect the situation.
Slightly OT, but not too much. Maybe it's been discussed before and I
missed it.
The discussion about folderview brings me to a more general question
about 4.x features. In old 3.x times, the Desktop was just a folderview
showing the ~/Desktop folder contents. Whatever you wanted to be shown
in your Desktop could be either added to it by a context menu, or simply
put into the ~/Desktop folder. The only real difference between what was
shown on Desktop and what could be seen with a file manager was that on
Desktop everything was translated. It was rather simple and
straightforward, providing all the functionalities required. An empty
Desktop folder would lead to a clean empty Desktop, a Desktop folder
populated with links to folders and applications would lead to a Desktop
providing quick access to user's most needed features.
I fail to grasp the rationale behind creating Plasma and Plasmoids,
which to a simple minded like me appear to be nothing but a clumsy
implementation of what was already available, and then including the
folderview we're discussing, to mimic previous features which in old
good times were already there, and much simpler to create and to maintain.
Could someone give me a clue of why Plasma, Plasmoids and such should be
considered a step forward, and not a step back, as it appears to me?
Is there something more than parroting Mac Desktop, which is the poorest
point of Mac implementation trading off functionality in favor of
pleasant look?
What are, by an user point of view, the extra features we've gained?
What do I fail to grasp?
--
Giuliano Colla
Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong (O. Wilde)
10:54 a.m.
Giuliano Colla wrote:
I fail to grasp the rationale behind creating Plasma and Plasmoids,
which to a simple minded like me appear to be nothing but a clumsy
implementation of what was already available, and then including the
folderview we're discussing, to mimic previous features which in old
good times were already there, and much simpler to create and to maintain.
Could someone give me a clue of why Plasma, Plasmoids and such should be
considered a step forward, and not a step back, as it appears to me?
Is there something more than parroting Mac Desktop, which is the poorest
point of Mac implementation trading off functionality in favor of
pleasant look?
What are, by an user point of view, the extra features we've gained?
What do I fail to grasp?
A folder view entry can only show an icon and a name, and open the
associated program if you click on it. A plasmoid can interact with you
directly on the desktop, e.g. it can show you today's and the next few days'
weather or the latest xkcd comic strip, it can play video and music etc. And
in many cases, the same plasmoid can be put on the desktop (as a desktop
widget) or on a panel (as a mini-widget or a popup widget, depending on the
form factor of the widget), as you prefer. So this is much more flexible
than the plain old folder view desktop. (BTW, the Plasma folder view
containment can actually also host plasmoids, so if you use that, you get
both KDE 3 compatibility and KDE Plasma 4 features.)
Kevin Kofler
10:49 a.m.
Anne Wilson wrote:
On Tuesday 30 Aug 2011 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Anne Wilson wrote:
> > Now I'm really confused so I made a new folderview to see what really
> > happens in Fedora 14. It opens at ~/.
>
> The folder view widget itself defaults to ~, but the default layout
> script in 4.6 was explicitly setting the folder of the folder view
> created by default to ~/Desktop.
>
Even more confused, then :-) because I'm running 4.6.5, and it opened at
~.
That's expected. As I said, the folder view widget itself defaults to ~, so
if you create a new folder view, that's what it's going to open at!
But if you create a new user or remove/rename your plasma-desktop-appletsrc,
you will end up with a desktop containing a folder view pointing to
~/Desktop, not ~.
Kevin Kofler
2:23 p.m.
On Tuesday 30 Aug 2011 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 Aug 2011 Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Anne Wilson wrote:
>> > Now I'm really confused so I made a new folderview to see what really
>> > happens in Fedora 14. It opens at ~/.
>>
>> The folder view widget itself defaults to ~, but the default layout
>> script in 4.6 was explicitly setting the folder of the folder view
>> created by default to ~/Desktop.
>
> Even more confused, then :-) because I'm running 4.6.5, and it opened at
> ~.
That's expected. As I said, the folder view widget itself defaults to ~, so
if you create a new folder view, that's what it's going to open at!
But if you create a new user or remove/rename your
plasma-desktop-appletsrc, you will end up with a desktop containing a
folder view pointing to ~/Desktop, not ~.
Ah - now I understand. Thanks for the explanation.
Anne
6:03 p.m.
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Does windows have a 'folder view' on it's desktop?
I've never seen one.
Window$' folder view IS the desktop. Its desktop shows the content of the
virtual folder "Desktop" which is actually just an alias for some physical
folder deep in the directory structure (somewhere under Documents and
Settings in current releases).
Kevin Kofler
12:25 p.m.
On Friday 26 Aug 2011 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Does windows have a 'folder view' on it's desktop? I've never seen
one.
Window$' folder view IS the desktop. Its desktop shows the content of the
virtual folder "Desktop" which is actually just an alias for some physical
folder deep in the directory structure (somewhere under Documents and
Settings in current releases).
And surprise, surprise, that is exactly what you got with the oft-mourned KDE
3.x.
Anne
5:02 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 18:25, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>> See also,
>> http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
>
> It would help if you reproduced that poll's options here, since Facebook is
> banning us non-Facebook-users from even viewing it…
fwiw, the options there were essentially as I posed it here
1. stick with empty desktop, no widgets (upstream default)
This is actually what i have all the time. The first thing i do when i
install Fedora is remove any widgets on the desktop.
2. revert back to pre kde-4.7 setup, with folderview widget
I think this is the best option though. It's very easy to remove (one
click) for people who don't want the folderview but it's the least
surprising to new users (both to kde 4.7 and from "the other side").
3. (kevin's favorite. :) ) use folderview *layout*, full screen,
aka like kde3 times.
Using the folderview layout doesn't seem to work all that well with
adding other widgets and although i found the option to change the
layout fairly quickly it is not entirely obvious to new users that
they need to change that setting just to make widgets work smoothly.
That might cause quite a bit of confusion since plasma widgets are
advertised as quite a major feature of kde.
As for the whole facebook vs google+ discussion i don't think either
are a particularly great idea. I hate facebook and it's invisible to
anybody without an account. Google+ seems a lot better on both counts
but sadly since it is still invitation only many people still can't
use it properly (myself included).
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary
and those who don't...
5:22 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM, John5342 <john5342(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 18:25, Rex Dieter
<rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> Rex Dieter wrote:
>>> See also,
>>> http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
>>
>> It would help if you reproduced that poll's options here, since Facebook
is
>> banning us non-Facebook-users from even viewing it…
>
> fwiw, the options there were essentially as I posed it here
> 1. stick with empty desktop, no widgets (upstream default)
This is actually what i have all the time. The first thing i do when i
install Fedora is remove any widgets on the desktop.
> 2. revert back to pre kde-4.7 setup, with folderview widget
I think this is the best option though. It's very easy to remove (one
click) for people who don't want the folderview but it's the least
surprising to new users (both to kde 4.7 and from "the other side").
> 3. (kevin's favorite. :) ) use folderview *layout*, full screen, aka
like kde3 times.
Using the folderview layout doesn't seem to work all that well with
adding other widgets and although i found the option to change the
layout fairly quickly it is not entirely obvious to new users that
they need to change that setting just to make widgets work smoothly.
That might cause quite a bit of confusion since plasma widgets are
advertised as quite a major feature of kde.
As for the whole facebook vs google+ discussion i don't think either
are a particularly great idea. I hate facebook and it's invisible to
anybody without an account. Google+ seems a lot better on both counts
but sadly since it is still invitation only many people still can't
use it properly (myself included).
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary
and those who don't...
_______________________________________________
kde mailing list
kde(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde
New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
Hi, not sure if this discussion is mainly just for the KDE SIG or not but as
a KDE user I like folder view and think that for people coming from a
Windows or even GNOME 2 desktop would feel more comfortable with that as the
default.
As far as the Facebook or Google+ poll goes how about a poll on the Fedora
Forum? Then at the very least you would get feedback from current or
perspective Fedora KDE users.
Also thank you very much to the contributors of the KDE SIG. I have
recently become a Fedora user and KDE user and appreciate the work you all
do.
--
Mike
6:23 p.m.
2011/8/24 Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu>:
fwiw, the options there were essentially as I posed it here
1. stick with empty desktop, no widgets (upstream default)
2. revert back to pre kde-4.7 setup, with folderview widget
3. (kevin's favorite. :) ) use folderview *layout*, full screen, aka like kde3
times.
I prefer the 1st one.
May be the 3rd is less confusing for those MS Windows users who are
trying KDE for the first time.
--
“The collaborative manner in which open source software is developed
shows the true potential of humanity if we all work together towards a
common goal.”
--
Maximiliano Alvisto De León
1:29 a.m.
I would suggest that having the memo plasmoid might be enough (at least for
new people using KDE), or maybe memo & folderview?
3:26 a.m.
On 08/24/2011 01:53 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
The kde-sig is seeking feedback on f16's plasma-desktop (and
potentially
other containments) default layout.
In particular, prior to kde-4.7.x, the default was basically an empty
desktop with a sole folderview widget. Now in kde47, the default is
even emptier, without even folderview.
So, we were close to deciding simply putting a folderview back as
default, but I thought we could brainstorm for even better ideas. What
do you all think?
I vote for emptiness. Whenever I do a complete install, I spend the next
week turning things off. My experience so far is that it is a lot easier
to turn things on than to turn them off.
Jim
6:29 a.m.
Jim Lemon wrote:
I vote for emptiness. Whenever I do a complete install, I spend the
next
week turning things off. My experience so far is that it is a lot easier
to turn things on than to turn them off.
That's not quite true in this case. Removing a Plasma widget (plasmoid) from
the desktop can be done in 1 click (click on the X which appears if you
mouseover the widget). Adding it means going to the desktop toolbox (by
clicking on that cashew-like icon), clicking on "Add widget" and then
finding the correct widget in the list (which also implies you have to know
how it's called). So removing stuff is much easier than adding it in this
case.
Kevin Kofler
6:32 a.m.
On 08/24/2011 09:29 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jim Lemon wrote:
> I vote for emptiness. Whenever I do a complete install, I spend the next
> week turning things off. My experience so far is that it is a lot easier
> to turn things on than to turn them off.
That's not quite true in this case. Removing a Plasma widget (plasmoid) from
the desktop can be done in 1 click (click on the X which appears if you
mouseover the widget). Adding it means going to the desktop toolbox (by
clicking on that cashew-like icon), clicking on "Add widget" and then
finding the correct widget in the list (which also implies you have to know
how it's called). So removing stuff is much easier than adding it in this
case.
Well, I know it took me days to find out how to get rid of the cashew,
and that was only one of the things that I decided I didn't need.
Perhaps I'm a troglodyte in this regard, but I like to start a session
clean.
Jim
6:43 a.m.
Jim Lemon wrote:
Well, I know it took me days to find out how to get rid of the
cashew,
and that was only one of the things that I decided I didn't need.
The cashew is not a widget, it is not really up for discussion here.
(FWIW, I also use kde-plasma-ihatethecashew.)
Kevin Kofler
6:03 a.m.
Rex Dieter wrote:
The kde-sig is seeking feedback on f16's plasma-desktop (and
potentially
other containments) default layout.
In particular, prior to kde-4.7.x, the default was basically an empty
desktop with a sole folderview widget. Now in kde47, the default is
even emptier, without even folderview.
So, we were close to deciding simply putting a folderview back as
default, but I thought we could brainstorm for even better ideas. What
do you all think?
See also,
http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
-- rex
If we're voting, I have a different request. Make cwd be $user/home.
It seems
to be $user/home/Documents. For example, if I start emacs from kde panel (which
uses 'emacs %f'), it starts with cwd being Documents. I don't even know how
to
change it.
6:38 a.m.
On 08/25/2011 09:03 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
> The kde-sig is seeking feedback on f16's plasma-desktop (and potentially
> other containments) default layout.
>
> In particular, prior to kde-4.7.x, the default was basically an empty
> desktop with a sole folderview widget. Now in kde47, the default is
> even emptier, without even folderview.
>
> So, we were close to deciding simply putting a folderview back as
> default, but I thought we could brainstorm for even better ideas. What
> do you all think?
>
> See also,
> http://www.facebook.com/questions/10150276652411513/?qa_ref=qd
>
> -- rex
If we're voting, I have a different request. Make cwd be $user/home. It seems
to be $user/home/Documents. For example, if I start emacs from kde panel (which
uses 'emacs %f'), it starts with cwd being Documents. I don't even know how
to
change it.
Yes! I'm still trying to work out how to get the default search path to
be /home/$user. The problem for many of us, new or experienced, is that
trying to guess what the user wants never works. It's bad enough if one
just has to remove the things that aren't wanted. Maybe instead of
forcing everyone to have the same defaults like MS, a sort of FAQ of how
to change the search path, add a file manager, etc. "Setting up your
desktop".
Jim
7:57 a.m.
On 08/25/2011 06:03 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
If we're voting, I have a different request. Make cwd be
$user/home. It seems
to be $user/home/Documents. For example, if I start emacs from kde panel (which
uses 'emacs %f'), it starts with cwd being Documents. I don't even know how
to
change it.
Start a new thread please! :)
anyway, this is a known issue/bug, and there's an upstream bug open on
it already. and part of a big-picture issue of incorporating use of
xdg-user-dirs more...
-- rex
7:58 a.m.
On 08/23/2011 10:53 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
The kde-sig is seeking feedback on f16's plasma-desktop (and
potentially
other containments) default layout.
In particular, prior to kde-4.7.x, the default was basically an empty
desktop with a sole folderview widget. Now in kde47, the default is
even emptier, without even folderview.
So, we were close to deciding simply putting a folderview back as
default, but I thought we could brainstorm for even better ideas. What
do you all think?
To ensure this feedback is most useful, if rationale were provided
too... and "because this is what *I* do", doesn't count, sorry. :)
-- Rex
9:42 a.m.
Rex Dieter wrote:
To ensure this feedback is most useful, if rationale were provided
too... and "because this is what *I* do", doesn't count, sorry. :)
My preference: an empty desktop
Rationale: folderview is redundant, as users ought to be familiar with
file managers (namely dolphin or similar)
Rationale: Users can build up their systems from an empty slate, as
desired, rather than being forced to deconstruct one before constructing
their own
Rationale: cluttered desktops are ugly and counter to the kde4 paradigm
of order, place and function
11:14 a.m.
On Thursday 25 Aug 2011 Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> To ensure this feedback is most useful, if rationale were
provided
> too... and "because this is what I do", doesn't count, sorry. :)
My preference: an empty desktop
My preference is for a folderview. Rationale:
A single click closes it if you don't like it
It's easy to shrink it to take only a small area.
If you organise your files at all it's likely that you have one or more
directories that you use very frequently and the folderview can give quick
access to that area.
The "peek into" facility means it's possible to directly open a single file
without traversing several directories in a file manager.
File managers are great - but that's a different issue.
Anne
6:08 p.m.
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Rationale: folderview is redundant, as users ought to be familiar
with
file managers (namely dolphin or similar)
Most users don't even know what a file manager is (or in some cases even
what a file is, other than "that thing on my desktop", for that matter;
those are those folks who put files on their desktop rather than links).
Rationale: Users can build up their systems from an empty slate, as
desired, rather than being forced to deconstruct one before constructing
their own
It's just one click to remove the widget if unwanted, adding it if wanted is
actually harder.
Rationale: cluttered desktops are ugly and counter to the kde4
paradigm
of order, place and function
Desktops showing the contents of the Desktop folder have been the standard
paradigm in computing since 1995, and are what users are used to.
Kevin Kofler
4621
days inactive
4628
days old
48 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
Anne Wilson -
Colin J Thomson -
Daniel E. Moctezuma -
Ed Greshko -
Genes MailLists -
Giuliano Colla -
Jim Dean -
Jim Lemon -
John5342 -
Kevin Kofler -
Maximiliano Alvisto De León -
Michael Dinon -
Neal Becker -
Peter G. -
Rex Dieter