Janne wrote:What is the problem here?

The problem is that Folderview is not the same thing as a desktop directory. Stop trying to convince us that it is. It may perform many of the same functions, but it still is not the same thing.

Janne wrote:Icons on the desktop encourage "messy" computing. Folderview is a lot more elegant, powerful and cleaner solution. There's way too many times when I see someone with a desktop that is absolutely brimming with icons and other ****. Folderview at least tries to bring some sense of all that.

It is none of KDE's business how I work. Removing a feature because some users may utilize it in a way you find unaesthetic is supremely arrogant. Next time you see someone with a messy desktop that **** you off, turn around and take a deep breath, then get on with your own life instead of trying to manage the lives of others.

cbimerrow wrote:

Hans wrote:

1. Add a widget that acts as a link to the file. You can resize/rotate the widget (as any other widget) and remove it without deleting the file.

Mayhaps it's something Fedora has screwed up, but no such widget exists in my installation.

You get it by dropping a file on the default desktop.

1. Add a widget that acts as a file browser and make it point to a directory. Folder View is such a widget.

Which in itself is useful but does not help accomplish what I was trying to do.

Why not? You can create a directory (e.g. ~/scripts), place the desktop files in the directory and point Folder View to it. Then you would get a "box" with your icons.

1. Change "desktop". In KDE4 it's called Desktop Activity, and you can change its type in the Desktop Settings dialog. Screenshot here.
   If you choose Folder View you'll basically get a Folder View (the "widget") as your desktop.

Doesn't exist in Fedora Core 9, at least not in a place that could be found without digging, definitely not in the right-click-context-menu. This is KDE 4.1.1. Again, if this is something Fedora has screwed up I'll be happy to take it up with them. And again, this still requires a leap of logic, since there's nothing there that tells the user "Confused as to why this system isn't letting you do the things you've done for 13 years? CLICK HERE!"

This isn't only about logic, it's not very easy to discover if you don't know what you're looking for. I actually wrote something like "(3) the least obvious way" in my first post, but decided to exclude that part. Anyway, the user have to read a little bit about Plasma to understand how this works.

Now, wouldn't you agree that it's silly to provide a "New icon" in the right-click context menu?

No, I don't agree that it's silly because THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT TO BE THERE. Turning people's expectations on their heads for no reason is pointless!

There is a reason, and it's called "doesn't make any sense".

(Note that I'm talking about the default desktop). Because you can't create anything on the desktop (someone has to correct me if I'm wrong here), but you can add things: widgets, panels, icons etc. Yes, even icons. But why should that widget get its own context menu item?

Because people expect it to be there.

I don't like this argument. I think things should be logical and consistent (that's probably why I use Linux and write in Dvorak).
People expect to find their files in C: too; just to give an exaggerated example.

Did you ever look in the Add Widgets dialog when you tried to add the icons to your desktop? In my opinion, that's the most logical place to look if you want to use the first approach (1).

Yes, I did look there. In fact, that was one of the most frustrating parts of the entire experience: opening the add widgets dialog and getting presented a list of completely useless toy applets, mostly with the functional equivalence of xeyes, and not a single widget at all resembling something like "Shortcut".

The reason I asked was because there is no such widget by default. There was an "Icon" widget before but it was removed. I think a "Shortcut" or "Link" widget would be quite helpful.

If a method exists to take an existing .desktop file that's dropped onto the desktop and create a widget out of it, it should be possible to just skip the drag-and-drop step and create one directly from the context menu.

Then you'll have to make your own containment (the desktop activity type). As I said before, such an action in the default context menu doesn't make any sense. Why favor that particular widget? If you want icons on your desktop, you should use the Folder View containment anyway.

[hr]

Brandybuck wrote:The problem is that Folderview is not the same thing as a desktop directory. Stop trying to convince us that it is. It may perform many of the same functions, but it still is not the same thing.

What do you miss? As I wrote, you can choose Folderview as your Desktop type which makes it pretty close to a traditional desktop.

neverendingo wrote:Then at last you could try this workaround: Drag any application from the menu to the desktop. Then configure the newly created icon and edit the programm it points to. And maybe the icon, too, if you wish.

I'm not sure that's clear, so let me go into a little more detail:
What you're talking about is right clicking on the application icon, clicking on "properties", and editing the name, the command line, and possibly selecting another icon.... right? This has worked for me. It's really possible to turn any generic desktop application widget into any custom application widget you like. So there ya go.

It's a pain learning new things, but once you've learned them, they're learned.

But KDE3 remains an option. It's easy to feel like you're being forced into upgrading, but you're not, even if your distro drops KDE3. When Kubuntu dropped KDE3, community repositoreis sprang up right away, and now anybody can run KDE on Kubuntu, as I am doing right this minute. The choice is yours, and no one else's.

KDE3 is going to be supported for years. And KDE4 is still under construction.[hr]

Brandybuck wrote:

Janne wrote:What is the problem here?

The problem is that Folderview is not the same thing as a desktop directory. Stop trying to convince us that it is. It may perform many of the same functions, but it still is not the same thing.

Janne wrote:Icons on the desktop encourage "messy" computing. Folderview is a lot more elegant, powerful and cleaner solution. There's way too many times when I see someone with a desktop that is absolutely brimming with icons and other ****. Folderview at least tries to bring some sense of all that.

It is none of KDE's business how I work. Removing a feature because some users may utilize it in a way you find unaesthetic is supremely arrogant. Next time you see someone with a messy desktop that **** you off, turn around and take a deep breath, then get on with your own life instead of trying to manage the lives of others.

HA! Janne, you kind of left yourself open to that one! I hope you didn't mean to sound quite so snooty. [font=Trebuchet MS]"Thine Desktop offendeth mine eye!"[/font]

The thing is, in k3, people's desktops usually get cluttered because everything downloads there by default. Changing the download settings on your browser may be a much simpler and less intrusive solution to the problem. That way, things end up on the desktop because the user puts them there, and no other reason.

I'm kind of a special case. I run KDE applications in fluxbox, and my main concern is full features for Konqueror. That's the point at which I'll consider migrating, but if I used KDE in the traditional way as a Desktop environment, no way would I be migrating until the Colgate Invisible Shield comes down. What I've heard is that in the future, plasma will be optional, so if I were you, brandybuck, I'd just stick with k3 until that happens. It'll probably take a while, but KDE3 will be around as long as people want to use it.

Source.

Before you guys go on arguing about the merits and demerits of the traditional desktop vs. the implementation of it in KDE 4.1, it's entirely worth noting that the DEVELOPERS of KDE 4 have acknowledged (both explicitly by word, and implicitly by the developments in 4.2) that KDE's ability to model the traditional desktop (1) is not complete or satisfactory, and (2) needs to improve.

Now, I myself am a bit baffled about some of the things that have been left out at this point, particularly some of the rudimentary config options that aren't present in various widgets or whatnot; but I'm also not a developer (more of a script-hacker), so I cannot truly appreciate what goes in to putting these things together.

But suffice it to say:
- It ain't done yet.
- When it is (more) done, the "traditional desktop experience" will be far more seamless.

Best thing to do right now is sign up for a bug tracker account and file/vote for usability bugs.

Brandybuck wrote:It is none of KDE's business how I work. Removing a feature because some users may utilize it in a way you find unaesthetic is supremely

Since in trunk you can use Folder View as containment, and hence as a "normal" desktop, this is now a non-issue.

cbimerrow wrote:
No, the problem is that in the process of introducing a new paradigm an existing operation from an older that has been around for over a decade which is easily understood by even novice users has been arbitrarily removed.

It's not "arbitary". And besides, something it is required to let go of old things. If developers could not never remove old stuff, things simply would not work.

But it IS a major issue because this is how computer users EXPECT a computer with a GUI to behave.

And at one point they expected computers to function by typing commends in to them. Things change. Adjusting to this change takes few minutes, and after that, it's a non-issue.

I have to respectfully disagree. The learning curve in this instance is in no way low, as it requires a *leap of logic* for you to determine the new way to achieve what you want.

You need to just remember to drag and drop... Or you need to remember to use a folderview. And in 4.2 you can have the exact behavior you wish.

I'm not being conceited when I say I am something of an expert computer user

Yet you are utterly incapable of getting your head around something as simple as this?

After regaling my Boss with this story, someone who's expertise with Linux dwarfs my own, he explained to me that he had the *same problem* trying to use KDE 4.1 at home and had finally given up in frustration with the new interface and gone back to KDE 3.x.

He's more than welcome to do that. Besides, you can have the fun ctionality you wish in 4.2. So what exactly is the problem here?

This led to further coworkers wandering over to the cubicle and joining the conversation to complain as well about how difficult it was to accomplish the same tasks in 4.1 on the newer machines in our labs than it was using KDE 3.x on their desktops.

In other words: they were complaininh because it was quite hard to make KDE4 look, work and behave like KDE3 does? Couldn that be becuse KDE4 is not KDE3? If you want something that is exactly like KDE3, then use KDE3.

The fact that some other (completely unrelated) way to accomplish this exists doesn't excuse the fact that people's expectations are being turned on their heads. Even allowing your claim that the new interface has a lower learning curve than the old one to stand, it's still wrong and completely to punish people who have learned the old way of doing things at the same time you reward new users!

You are blowing this way out of proportion. You DO have the functionality that you want, and in 4.2 it will even work exactly like you want it to work. So what exactly is your point here?

It is when you take into account "Open File Manager, Create Shortcut *in* File Manager, Drag Shortcut to Desktop" is a pretty big logical leap from "Right Click on Desktop"

If you right.click in the folderview, you get exactly that. What's wring with folderview? And in 4.2 you can have the traditional desktop-behavior, so excuse me if I fail to see the problem here.

Yes, KDE4 requires the user to do some things in a different way. Things change, get used to it. Had change not been allowed, we would still be running TWM.

And if that's the case, as I said, please tell me and I'll be happy to shut up about it.

n 4.2 you can use folderview as a containment. What does that means? It means that the desktop will behave just like "traditional" desktop behaves.

But all the answers I seem to get consist of "But the new way is soooo much better!" which is especially frustrating because it isn't.

Folderview IS about 20 times better than the old kludge of having icons on the desktop.

No, he's not. My Grandmother can right click on the desktop and create a shortcut

And she can still do it....

No, you really haven't.

I quite clearly listed possible reasons why the feautre is not there. You even commented on them![hr]

Brandybuck wrote:

Janne wrote:What is the problem here?

The problem is that Folderview is not the same thing as a desktop directory. Stop trying to convince us that it is. It may perform many of the same functions, but it still is not the same thing.

No, it's not the same. It's something better. It offer more power and flexibility to the user.

It is none of KDE's business how I work.

But it is KDE's job to make your work as pleasant as possible.

Removing a feature because some users may utilize it in a way you find unaesthetic is supremely arrogant. Next time you see someone with a messy desktop that **** you off, turn around and take a deep breath, then get on with your own life instead of trying to manage the lives of others.

Here are the facts of the situation:

a) You can still add shortcuts to the desktop. Either you drag them from Dolphin, or you right-click inside folderview and add it through the context-menu.

b) The feature you want (adding shortcuts anywhere on the desktop through a context-menu) will be in 4.2, since in 4.2 you can use the folderview as a containment.

So things work, even at this very second. But they might not work EXACTLY like you want it to work. In 4.2 it will work EXACTLY like you wish for it to work.

Don't believe me? Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzzk6P4rbfE

Notice the icons on the desktop. Realize, that the functionality you wish for is just few months away. Relax.

screenshots of a desktop like kde3

arch kde4.2 SVN

einar wrote:Since in trunk you can use Folder View as containment...

Can you Plasma guys STOP using the word "containment"? There's enough insider jargon out there and we don't need more. Containment is what you do with rogue nuclear states or ebola epidemics.

First of all, I'm not a "Plasma guy". I'm just a user that started the FAQ to avoid disinformation. That said, "containment" is also a Plasma term to define "containers" of applets (the explanation for the use, a joke, comes from one of aseigo's earlier posts about Plasma), and it's not going away soon. I agree that it can be confusing, but again, that's why documents like the FAQ have a glossary.

einar wrote:First of all, I'm not a "Plasma guy". I'm just a user that started the FAQ to avoid disinformation.

Nevertheless, a user shouldn't have to read a FAQ to figure out what people are talking about. It really turns people off. Listen to how it sounds:

User: "Why can't I do this?"
Developer: "Since Folderview is finklegruber, it is no longer a problem."

Brandybuck wrote:

einar wrote:First of all, I'm not a "Plasma guy". I'm just a user that started the FAQ to avoid disinformation.

Nevertheless, a user shouldn't have to read a FAQ to figure out what people are talking about. It really turns people off. Listen to how it sounds:

User: "Why can't I do this?"
Developer: "Since Folderview is finklegruber, it is no longer a problem."

Basically you could say that about any app and OS name.
Eg.: Windows, Gnome, KDE, Firefox ... there even is a company called "Apple", apple ...

People weren't born with their windows "knowledge" they had to read or experience it somewhere first. Same goes here.

If you are that resistant to new names for new things then you should probably stick to what you are used to, forever.

mat69 wrote:If you are that resistant to new names for new things then you should probably stick to what you are used to, forever.

Get serious. Go look up the word "jargon".

The terms "window", "menu" and "mouse" have been around for thirty years. "Containment" has been around barely one year, and only in reference to a subproject of a single desktop. Users should not have to go to the glossary of a FAQ of a subproject to figure out what the heck you're talking about.

Brandybuck wrote:The terms "window", "menu" and "mouse" have been around for thirty years. "Containment" has been around barely one year, and only in reference to a subproject of a single desktop. Users should not have to go to the glossary of a FAQ of a subproject to figure out what the heck you're talking about.

A couple of others then...

Virtual desktop, widget (the meaning of that changes a lot!), window manager (with or without composite), semantic desktop, desktop environment, quicksilver, package manager, tarball, aero, aqua, gtk, qt, kde, gnome, fluxbox, bluetooth, WPA, WEP, and on and on. Point is, if you work with a computer no matter at what proficiency level: there is a lot of jargon that is not immediately obvious what it means. Some you don't need to know as a mere user (but is essential for a system-manager), some is not applicable for some environments (i.e. containment in gnome).

How is containment any different than those?

Kryten2X4B wrote:Virtual desktop, widget (the meaning of that changes a lot!), window manager (with or without composite), semantic desktop, desktop environment, quicksilver, package manager, tarball, aero, aqua, gtk, qt, kde, gnome, fluxbox, bluetooth, WPA, WEP, and on and on. Point is, if you work with a computer no matter at what proficiency level: there is a lot of jargon that is not immediately obvious what it means. Some you don't need to know as a mere user (but is essential for a system-manager), some is not applicable for some environments (i.e. containment in gnome).

How is containment any different than those?

Many of those have the same problem. What the heck is a virtual desktop? Until you've actually used one, it's meaningless. I'm still not sure what a semantic desktop is, and I've read the wikipedia page on it. Quick: tell me the difference between a window manager and a desktop environment!

It's too late for most of those terms. The damage has been done. But containment is new. There may still be time to squash it before it gains acceptance.

Just as hackers should not be designing user interfaces, neither should they be writing user documentation. Of course, neither should marketing, but that's another problem.

Brandybuck wrote:

einar wrote:Since in trunk you can use Folder View as containment...

Can you Plasma guys STOP using the word "containment"? There's enough insider jargon out there and we don't need more. Containment is what you do with rogue nuclear states or ebola epidemics.

"context-menu" is jargon. "Application-shortcut" is jargon. "plasma" is jargon....