Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Should Apps Replace Title Bars with Header Bars? (gnome.org) 362

Gnome contributor Tobias Bernard is on a crusade against title bars -- "the largely empty bars at the top of some application windows [that] contain only the window title and a close button." Instead he wants to see header bars -- "a newer, more flexible pattern that allows putting window controls and other UI elements in the same bar." Tobias Bernard writes: Header bars are client-side decorations (CSD), which means they are drawn by the app rather than the display server. This allows for better integration between application and window chrome. All GNOME apps (except for Terminal) have moved to header bars over the past few years, and so have many third-party apps. However, there are still a few holdouts.
He's announcing the CSD Initiative, "an effort to get apps (both GNOME and third-party) to drop title bars and adopt GNOME-style client-side decorations... The only way to solve this problem long-term is to patch applications upstream to not use title bars. So this is what we'll have to do."
  • Talk to the maintainers and convince them that this is a good idea
  • Do the design work of adapting the layout and make mockups
  • Figure out what is required at a technical level
  • Actually implement the new layout and get it merged

Implementation is already in progress for Firefox, though it has not yet been started for other high-priority apps like LibreOffice, GNOME Terminal, and Skype. "If you want to help with any of the above tasks," writes Tobias, "come talk to us on #gnome-design on IRC/Matrix."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should Apps Replace Title Bars with Header Bars?

Comments Filter:
  • Just. Fuck. Off. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28, 2018 @10:38AM (#56019835)

    "I must make my mark by fucking up a user interface that's worked fine for thirty damned years!!!! Because I'm soooo much smarter than everyone else!!!"

    The sad thing is, the dolts running Gnome might agree with this simpering jackass. Hell, can't pass up a chance to cram in more bloat!

    • by MMC Monster ( 602931 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @11:14AM (#56019985)

      Where the fuck are we supposed to grab a window in order to move it if the title bar is crammed full of junk?

      Keep the title bar and bring back the menu bar as well. those of us that actually use a windowing operating system need them.

      You want to determine whether the user is using a touch interface and adjust the UI accordingly? Fine. But some of us actually produce content on desktop computers, where design elements are made to conform to a keyboard and mouse interface.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > Where the fuck are we supposed to grab a window in order to move it if the title bar is crammed full of junk?

        Come up with a new UI paradigm. For instance, for years now I use Meta+Left Click to grab my windows and move them (KDE). I can grab them anywhere in the window area so I don't have to try target a few pixels at the top of it. To maximize the window, I just drag it to the top of the screen. To unmaximize it I pull it away from the top the the screen. It is much quicker and easier to move windows

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I wish windowing systems were less flexible. In the 80s everyone was trying to build libraries that made creating consistent UIs easier. Some operating systems just built a standard library in and enforced its use.

        In the late 90s people switched to horrific skinned UIs and breaking basic functionality that users came to expect. We never fully recovered.

        TFA points it that the title bar is actually the responsibly of the application and is optional. Screw that, make it mandatory and consistent. Life is too sh

      • Where the fuck are we supposed to grab a window in order to move it if the title bar is crammed full of junk?

        Under X, you press Alt and grab the window anywhere to move it. Left mouse button for move, right for resize. I guess this depends on your window manager, but I've used it since forever under many different systems.

        This is how it should work with the desktop metaphor, after all. Because if you have papers lying on your desk, it would be silly if you had to grab them carefully by the top edge to move them.

      • Use the ALT key like a normal human being.

    • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      There is room for improvement, in Firefox I have old style text menu, nav buttons, URL box, Search Box and dozens of bookmarks in 3/4 of the space that chrome or Firefox default uses to put half the amount of stuff. By default applications waste space with empty title bar and half empty menu bar. For some app's this doesn't matter, for a browser it's a horrible waste.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The problem is how *utterly* retarded and out of touch their mindsets and goals are.
      It started with Apple, and Microsoft, Gnome, KDE, (What[TheFuck]WG,) Google, Mozilla, everybody followed them ... like a literal mind virus that drives people retarded. (Has anyone seen BrainDead, the TV series? That's how this feels.)

      Frankly, everybody who stopped using plain words in their programs, but uses only abstract icons instead, can fuck off and die.
      Even worse if the UI is monochrome. The kind of people who like th

      • . . . said pretty much the same thing, but he never expressed those thoughts quite that elegantly.

      • by Dracos ( 107777 )

        I thought I had written this in my sleep until I got to the last paragraph.

        It really seems these groups/entities are looking for ways to distinguish their products rather than actually make them better. Gratuitous and/or ill-considered change masquerading as improvement.

    • Re:Just. Fuck. Off. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @12:20PM (#56020301)


      There are many reasons I despise Gnome, and this is another illustration of their arrogance. You would think they would have learned by now. This kind of thing is why I continue to use KDE, XFCE, and LXDE. Remember them mucking up desktop management? Removing any start menu option? Trying to force everything to run full-screen? Moving the stupid window controls to the LEFT side? Lack of sub-menus for program organization? Inability to see background/minimized windows? Lack of tooltips? Changing default icons to color-less line drawings? Removing more and more customizations? Gobbling up RAM like there is no tomorrow?


      Message to Gnome: If you are going to continue to ignore your user base and do freaky things to the UI, the least you can do is to make such changes OPTIONAL through easy user configuration. And not just now [to remove the options later], but ALWAYS.

      • Reply to self- I left off perhaps my most hated thing with GTK3/Gnome- freaking HIDING everything, especially the damn scroll bars!

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      What do you expect, Gnome still thinks global menus are a good idea.
    • by jmccue ( 834797 )

      I guess GNOME3 wants to be just like cwm without keyboard accelerators and using lots of memory.

      Wonder if this is a direct result of how hardware people is shrinking vertical screen resolution every half decade or so, but leave non-GNOME applications alone.

      The Libra-office proposal will screw it up for most other window-managers/DE.

    • Brave, brave, visionaries.

  • by Dwedit ( 232252 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @10:39AM (#56019841) Homepage

    Since there is empty space at the top for a title bar, other applications have been designed around that.
    For example, Microsoft Remote Desktop puts a server bar at the top-center of the window.
    Then there's Winamp, which can be sized down to be the size of a title bar and be kept always-on-top.

    • And I used to use Fluxbox with grouped/tabbed windows and mouse-over window switching. Very convenient but inimical to these proposed stupidbars.
    • by tpierron ( 1067028 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @10:55AM (#56019907)

      Yep, and it is not necessarily a bad thing that they are empty: it provides a clear area where you can grab and move the window. When I see the examples in the articles: how the f**k are you supposed to move these ? This is also what I don't like with chrome and the new firefox quantum: when your bar is full of tabs, good luck moving the window.

      I know that multi-tasking is kind of overrated these days, but come on, some people still uses their desktop to do more things at once ...

      • Alt-click doesn't work?
      • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @03:23PM (#56021547)
        The problem is title bars were introduced when 4:3 and 5:4 aspect ratio monitors were the norm. The screen was much closer to a square and so had a lot more vertical space.

        The ubiquity of 16:9 and even 21:9 monitors today means vertical space is a lot more valuable than horizontal space. If 16:9 monitors had been the norm when these UIs were first being developed, I suspect the title bar would've been placed along the left side, not on the top (reversible to the right side for languages written from right to left). I use the Tree-style Tabs extension [mozilla.org] in Firefox for this reason. Instead of my tabs taking up valuable vertical space, they're shoved off to the side where I have plenty of extra space. (Although Firefox recently moved the tabs into the title bar space. Chrome half-does this too.)
  • by coats ( 1068 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @10:40AM (#56019847) Homepage
    And the chance that I'll have any kind of consistent interface, when thousands of app-writers are rolling their own? ZERO!
    • And the chance that I'll have any kind of consistent interface, when thousands of app-writers are rolling their own? ZERO!

      Have you had a look at the examples? Take a look now and tell me how I'm supposed to minimise or maximise the Chromium example.

      Thanks, but fuck off.

  • No, of course not. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @10:47AM (#56019869)

    There is a distinction between controls for an app and controls for a window manager.
    These are two different concepts and should not be muddled up.

    Similarly, should an app be able to bind Alt+Tab for its own use? No, of course not.

  • ... UI design becomes non trivial, if we look at how complex apps who have thousands of functions hidden or burried that even normal UI's can't handle. There's tonnes of stuff in many apps today that most people don't even know exists largely because it's buried in the lookup of the help menu.

    UI consistency does matter if your app is simple then you can probably get away with it but you need to be able to read what something does at a glance.

  • No. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @10:51AM (#56019891) Homepage
    I like my title bars and hate apps that think they're too important to cooperate with my window manager.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      too important to cooperate with my window manager.

      I suspect that this is what it's all about. Some app developer wants total control of your desktop and doesn't want you to drag their beautiful creation off into some corner.

  • GNOME is done. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @10:51AM (#56019895)

    The GNOME UI people have apparently become addicted to changing well defined behavior in favor of some crazy shit. GNOME 3 caused a mass exodus of developers because of this, so all they have left is the people who think it's acceptable to completely change the UI whenever they feel like it. This is descending into the death throes of GNOME.

    • Re:GNOME is done. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @11:30AM (#56020045) Homepage

      It's designers re-designing things for no other reason than to have work to point to on their resume. That's it. If everything is OK, and things are going great, what kind of work are designers going to do? How are they going to get their next jobs?

      Note that I'm not joking or being sarcastic. Designers really do get judged like this and if they don't re-design things, then where will they be? They will kill project after project because this is their lifeblood. I don't see it getting any better anytime soon, at least until "had the good judgment not to mess with a good system" becomes a valid bullet point on a designer's resume.

  • by poptart ( 145881 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @10:58AM (#56019921)

    have you ever tried to reposition a firefox or chrome window that is full of tabs?

    what happens when the window manager uses BeOS style titlebars?

    what happens to my webex/remote-desktop overlays when there is no empty space for them to live over?

    somewhat related: have you ever tried to resize a window that does not have obvious resize control handles? or have you ever tried to *not* resize a window when the non-obvious control 'areas' take your click instead of the drag-to-select-text that you intended?

    and don't get me started on scrollbars that appear and disappear depending on where you put your cursor instead of what the content is.

    • by Virtex ( 2914 )


      What happens when an application becomes unresponsive and you can no longer move or minimize the window?

      What happens when you use this with a program like Synergy [symless.com] and your mouse moves off the side of the screen while dragging a window? (Chrome freaks out when this happens.)

  • by Antiocheian ( 859870 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @11:00AM (#56019925) Journal

    So, Tobias Bernard is trying to convince everyone to join his CSD Initiative

    "tl;dr: Let’s get rid of title bars." he says. And what is the "tl" in this case ?

    title bars are the largely empty bars at the top of some application windows. They contain only the window title and a close button, and are completely separate from the window’s content. This makes them very inflexible, as they can not contain any additional UI elements, or integrate with the application window’s content.

    This isn't "too long". It's too short and illogical. "Title" is already the term for what he's trying to say so, he might simply be trying to say that applications don't need a title. So, I wonder he he's using a title ("Introducing the CSD Initiative") at his own article. My take: he's an idiot.

  • God help us (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eddeye ( 85134 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @11:02AM (#56019937)

    This is exactly why I quit using Gnome 20 years ago. Breaking UI conventions that work perfectly fine and destroying consistency.

    Why in god's name would I want apps to cram even more useless controls in my face? A window needs two things: a title so I know WTH it is, and min/max/close buttons. That's it. Now Gnome is taking that away? Just for 20 pixels of real estate ?

    Anyone calling themselves a "modern UI developer" should be tarred and feathered. Apple went to flat controls and borderless buttons. Microsoft made Office 2016 flatter than Kansas and decided light gray text controls on bright white background was somehow legible. Gnome has been lost in their own rabbit hole for decades. All of it making interfaces less intuitive and harder to use. A pox on all their houses.

    • And the title bar lets you easily move the window without having to hunt for a little bit of free space that this proposal causes.

    • Have you even used OSX?
      https://imgur.com/a/qsY7q [imgur.com]

      There's a gradient and drop shadows there on the window header and every button has both a border and subtle drop shadow.

      • OS X effectively keeps the empty title bar space he doesn't like (because Apple realized what a pain it would be without it.)

        There was a thing a while back (Mozilla IIRC) to get rid of "unneeded" bars (title, URL, status) in web browsers. It didn't completely succeed, since most browsers are still usable, but it made life harder since you can't tell where the window ends and the next begins. The !@#$ translucent effect makes it hard too, that's one of the first things I turn off.

        Title bars waste space, sure

    • by jmccue ( 834797 )

      his is exactly why I quit using Gnome 20 years ago.

      I assume you are exaggerating a bit, 20 years ago GNOME 1 was released.

      Or are you from the future, did GNOME 6 remove everything by then :)

  • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @11:04AM (#56019947)
    Windows 10 is trying to change the styles, too, and all you get is half the applications use one look, half use the other: "Here's a slick new settings interface! Oh... you want to actually do something Useful? Here's the old one." Most users don't care.
  • modern UI design (Score:5, Interesting)

    by e**(i pi)-1 ( 462311 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @11:12AM (#56019981) Homepage Journal
    Modern UI design is often more and more "hide and seek". URLs are hidden, menus disappear, scroll bars appear and disappear. Sometimes, one has the impression, UI designers wanted to play a prank. Adding more stuff in the title bar can be a good thing. But first a rant: I have worked on clunky user interfaces before in my life like VMS workstations, DOS, GEM on Atari or old Mac OS or even gopher browsers pre Mosaic, but the trend of "hide stuff" is driving me nuts. OS X by default does not show the hard drive, nor scroll bars. On browsers, both phone or desktop, things like URLs disappear. It is now cool to hide important things in cryptic places like three dots on the upper right corner in chrome. Or then windows which like to become full screen or adjust their position on their own. I have experienced less frustration writing from scratch a printer driver on an Atari than solving the trivial task to find the print button on a modern browser. Fortunately, it is in most cases still possible to configure things but it often needs first some searching maybe even looking up manuals. I understand that there are two forces in UI design, one which wants to hide things so that it is elegant and beautiful and so that the complexity is hidden and users protected from screwing things up. This is the "passenger" point of view, which mostly applies to consuming stuff. And then there is the need of speed and convenience, which asks for putting many things on the radar so that they can be accessed and found quickly. This is the "pilot" point of view, which mostly applies when producing stuff. The CSD initiative could be a good thing. I for myself like the title bar information. It tells me for each window, where and what it is. Let the user be able to configure it. And in general, be very gentle with changes. Even small modifications can disrupt work flows.
  • by jd ( 1658 )

    On the one hand, maximum function in minimum real-estate is a good idea.

    On the other hand, GNOME has become an ungodly mess and Linux' reputation for stability and speed has greatly suffered.

    Get GNOME to conform to NASA's Power of Ten rules and then let's talk.

  • Arrogance (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This reeks of Lennart Poettering-levels of arrogance and stupidity.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @11:38AM (#56020083)
    on the itty bitty bars at the top of my window on my 1080p monitor. I don't want clicking 'new tab' to feel like sniping somebody from across a map. I do, however, want hierarchical menus (File, Edit, View) that follow a consistent pattern making it easy to find things. Whoever came up with the Ribbon should be launched into space and fired out of an airlock.
  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @11:40AM (#56020091)
    ... I'd much rather see someone go on a crusade to have apps remember their last window size and location on the desktop, so that i don't have to resize and re-location the window each time I open an app on GNU/Linux. MS Windows has been doing this for decades, why is GNU/Linux so far behind? Is there a patent in the way?
    • Apps should not do this unless they're using a robust library for it. There's too much which can go wrong. This is admirably demonstrated by Windows. You open an app then close it, you switch your monitor, and your app appears OFFSCREEN. I know this is basics, but I work with several apps which make this mistake. And not unsurprisingly, those apps tend to be the type which mess with the way the window manager works with them, making them harder to actually bring onto screen.

      So yes, but only if there's

      • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @12:49PM (#56020527)

        ... And frankly, that makes me think this should be the role of the window manager....

        I would agree with that. The only reason why I put the onus on the app was that I was dumped upon the last time I brought it up for windows managers. Everyone told me it was the apps' responsibility. Seems like a lot of "not my job" finger pointing, imo. But I still have to ask, why is it still missing in GNU/Linux?

        It's a basic ease of use requirement. Why make the user resize and relocate a window each time the same app is opened? Aren't computers supposed to help reduce the number of repetitive tasks, not create more of them? KDE comes close on this, allowing me to remember size/location for individual windows, but the ability is sadly absent in the global settings area.

      • Really, the app can save it's window location using its own system and then on start up request the initial window placement and size. A good window manager will allow this unless it winds up completely off screen, when it should step in and put it at least on screen.

        The sad part is this isn't even hard to do for any competent app developer.

    • by rnturn ( 11092 )

      ``... have apps remember their last window size and location on the desktop, so that i don't have to resize and re-location the window each time I open an app ...''

      If you right-click on the title bar--you know... the screen element that this Gnome bozo would like to see disappear--KDE provides an option ``More Actions -> Special Windows Settings'' that lets you do just that. It even lets you specify that the application should always open in a specific Pager window. It'd be perfect if all applications

    • I'd much rather see someone go on a crusade to have apps remember their last window size and location on the desktop, so that i don't have to resize and re-location the window each time I open an app on GNU/Linux.

      No, please for the love of god, NO!

      Because no apps evre get it right in edge case. For example, I have two monitors at work. Not unusual. Slightly more unusually one of them is portrait. That means there's a lot of dead space.

      More unusually, I like things being horizontally aligned physically, whi

  • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @11:46AM (#56020119)

    As Mate Desktop has been progressing, they've been slowly replacing Gnome 3 apps (things like certain settings apps, the NetworkManager GUI, etc) with ones more consistent with the Mate Desktop, which is traditional and has regular window title bars.

    I for one never use the title bar for moving a window. I exclusively use Alt-click to move a window from anywhere in the window. However I want title bars because they distinguish one window from another using the color theme of window decorations that I want. I can make them small and efficient use of space. Gnome is what is making server-side title bars so big and wasteful. Also with HeaderBar CSDs it's very difficult to distinguish between windows as the headerbar isn't distinct form the body of other windows. This is something I've always had a hard time with on Mac, especially in recent years.

    The other thing I use title bars for is to roll up or shade the window, which I use nearly every day, particularly with terminal windows! I think Gnome 3 has the ability to shade apps, even with CSD, but I'm not sure. I saw at least one bug report that said it's no longer possible. But again, where would you click to do that? CSD header bars don't offer consistency in where you can click. Do you click on what looks like a title? blank space between buttons? Hard to know.

    With Linux desktops we used to celebrate diversity and choice. Now it appears Gnome 3 would be perfectly happy to be the only choice (getting rid of KDE, Mate, etc), and have all apps be Gnome 3 apps. Why would Blender ever want to integrate into Gnome 3's header bar? Blender doesn't need to look integrated, nor would it benefit it to do so. In fat it might even harm it. Better to look different and remind users that they are operating in a specific environment with a specific methodology that must be learned.

  • How sane are the KDE developers, and is there a good KDE distribution with a Cinnamon-style desktop interface?

    • KDE developers like to release broken software for a year or two after each major release (KDE 4, Plasma 5), but at least it's not intentionally broken, they just fail to update it to work with their new frameworks. And they lose features, but again only because the features aren't compatible with their latest idea and they'll eventually re-implement most (but not all)... they don't remove features purposely in the name of being user-friendly like GNOME developers.

      Basically: KDE devs are incompetent, wherea

  • Most applications in MATE don't seem to be afflicted with this nonsense. I sure hope it stays that way!

    • Agreed. We can tell Clem, though he probably already knows and agrees. This is just ignorant, but the bright side is it will drive more people to sensible things - like Mate, and off self-important bad design and change for its own sake (or more likely, for some ego's sake). Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
  • This is a picture perfect illustration of how Gnome has jumped the shark. I booted Gnome off my desktop after the Gnome 3 fiasco. I switched to XFCE. What a breath of fresh air.

    Of course, I didn't realize at the time that XFCE is based on GTK, so some of Gnome's shit has been slowly seeping up into my clean, workable, usable XFCE desktop. I've got too much invested in it, but, so far the amount of crap is manageable and can be dealt with by a few tweaks. If worse comes to worse, I suppose, there's always KD

  • by cas2000 ( 148703 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @12:09PM (#56020225)

    fuck gnome and their useless title bars with their inscrutable fucking hieroglyphics rather than menus with words.

    design a UI for illiterate retards and only illiterate retards will use it.

  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @12:13PM (#56020245) Homepage Journal

    That we put title bars on the back of the window, so that you have to flip them over to see them.

  • by rnturn ( 11092 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @12:14PM (#56020259)

    I'm almost certainly not the only user to configure my window manager to ``windowshade'' applications by double clicking on the title bar. Why screw people by making functions like that application-specific? I foresee this useful window function being:

    • a.) rarely implemented,
    • b.) likely a tiny button that'll be harder to hit easily and,
    • c.) a badly placed button. One can imagine some dain bread application developer placing the windowshade button right next to the `kill app' button. (Or right next to the `Send Out Not-A-Drill Nuclear Missile Warning' option.)

    Why force applications to re-implement useful screen elements that we already have and pretty much guarantee that the function won't work consistently across the applications that even bother to implement it? This sounds like a feature thought up by some one who thinks that an application's ability to have ``skins'' is the end-all-be-all of UI design.

  • ... I'm sure the developers will add an option so users can turn this behaviour off.

  • This [martin-graesslin.com] might be a relevant post from Kwin's main developer.
  • by yurikhan ( 1922146 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @12:28PM (#56020377)

    The classic title bar performs several functions of varying utility. Let me count them.

    1. As the title suggests, the title bar displays the title of the window. This typically includes the name of the application and the name of document currently opened, and can easily take half the space available or even more.

    2. It lights up when the window is active, and dims down when inactive, helping the user maintain focus with a busy desktop.

    3. It provides an intuitive, discoverable way of dragging the window. (For experienced users, Alt+dragging is more usable, although less discoverable.)

    4. It is a big target for (un)maximization via double click.

    5. It is a big target for opening the window control menu via right button click.

    6. It houses the window manager controls.

    7. Last but not the least, the title bar is provided by the window manager in a manner consistent across the desktop. If every application toolkit starts doing its own header bars, we lose this consistency.

  • Seems like a joke, but it's not. I sometimes run just twm or fvwm on plain old X.org.

    What would this do to that situation? Would the apps still work? Would they revert to older behavior?

    • by crow ( 16139 )

      Yup, me too. I run twm with a few patches I wrote.

      One thing I find extremely frustrating is apps that are heavily integrated with a desktop environment to the point where you have to install almost the entire environment just to run one app, and good luck if you want to play with its configuration settings.

      It would be great if the Gnome and KDE applications were designed to work well with their respective desktops, and also to work reasonably well on their own. This is exactly why we have toolkits like gt

  • I read his suggestion, looked up at the top of the window in the Safari browser and see it has:
    Several plugin icons
    The Link Address Field
    Cancel Load
    Tab View

    In other words, the Macintosh OS already does what he wants.

    Sounds like it is time for him to switch...

    • Funny you mention macOS. Way back around Gnome 2 a small group of people, I think a few had just left Apple, formed a group to create the Gnome Human Interface Guidelines. Within those guidelines some ideas were ok, like consistent spacing within UI elements. However some things like moving the dialog window buttons around started causing internal disagreement and developer grief. Most of those guidelines were fully implemented by the time of the GTK 3 release - please note that is the exact time GTK and Gn

  • They were like 640x480 or something, and the windows had title bars. Now I consider my 27" monitor to be pretty modest, given what I see others using, and the title bars are literally irrelevant.

    Maybe instead we should just have the title bars disappear when you aren't near them, like all the other UI controls! In fact, why don't we have the entire window operate that way, with only the things you hover over being visible? Everything else can fade to light gray on dark white (and in the Linux case, semi-

  • Taking GUI advice from a Gnome GUI developer is like taking Twitter etiquette advice from Donald Trump.

  • I don't see even an informal usability study anywhere in that to-do list. I guess actual usability is no longer an objective?

MESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.