It doesn't offend me - I just don't understand it. It seems unreasonable to panic about an idea before its even close to be implemented and well before its close to be tested and without caring about the details. I really wish I could grasp it but we both seem to agree there is an issue to solve, the suggestion being a sollution which will not affect those who do not want it and combined with a settings improvement could create a less cluttered desktop - so when there is an unreasonable knee-jerk reaction to any idea that in any way suggest a change to the status quo I become frustrated.

But noted: "no cluttered desktop" and "not being forced to change to vertical icons" are your "rules of admission" for the idea. I think we can pull that off.

(Just so this is clear as frustrated as I can get with it it doesn't mean that I'm angry or not interested in implementing your ideas. I have very strong opinions on design but I one of them is working my darndest to implement community ideas and input and trying to involve the community more in design choices)

It doesn't offend me - I just don't understand it. It seems unreasonable to panic about an idea before its even close to be implemented and well before its close to be tested and without caring about the details.

I'm far from being on panic. I just care about KDE and the way it looks and behaves. I'm looking forward to see new icons (i don't like oxygen as they are a little bit to glossy and detailed for my likings), new themes (though, I'm huge fan of skulpture), new ideas and concepts that would enchanced workflow and so one. Still I don't like change for the sake of change, or providing features that would simply produce problems.

Then we will be in allot of conflict in the future

I am against non-change for the sake of non-change. We both use KDE because we like it, we may just like different parts - with a little thought we can solve things like this make it better for all instead of change it that will mess up for you, or not change it which would make it worse for me. By finding some common ground, like the issue of removing clutter - we can solve both issues in one fell swoop.

I'm also not being panic. I'm just trying to discuss the idea. Don't treat every non-100%-euphoric comment as panic

The reason I wrote what I did was simply that before spending work to implement an idea, it makes sense to think about potential problems. If you don't agree with my points -- fine, just ignore them. It's quite possible I overlooked something which invalidates my point. But maybe at some time I write something you didn't think about.

And, as said in other places, while I agree with you that non-change for the sake of non-change is bad, the same applies to change for the sake of change. Plus, when the pros of cons of the old and the new solution outweight each other, I strongly favour keeping the old one.

Greetings!

Yes I realize - I disagree which I think you will find is my 0-step state. Anything kept because it is "what used to be" is being kept for no reason at all in my book.

Criticism is relevant - euphoria is not so please continue giving criticism. I still read it and I still take it to heart - I just deeply dislike being told not to do anything because its better than trying something - but just that is perhaps the relevant skill needed.
KDE has a huge issue with conservatism which has been the one warning I've been given going into this from several people, essentially "don't, the people who want the thing they have now no matter how bad will go for the throat and the positives never feel confident speaking up". Now I don't buy that - I assume all people have good intentions... even people who display conservatism as an argument against design.
My interest is to produce a better product than the one we have, this mean changes, experimentation and working from the ground up - we are also very very late in the game meaning there is not time to do extensive proper legwork for all design. There isn't.

That means the second best method - post ideas work on the new ones and bend them to be better is to be preferred. You can ALWAYS scrap a project mid-leap but you can never repair inaction. Inaction means death. So this will come up time and time again. It means ideas will pour out - the argument for changing the ideas are good even if the changes are in fact a revert back to the old functionality.
This in turn means: conservatism displayed will be met less enthusiastically than what I know is the norm in KDE. I am not a "pretty things for us" dude - so don't expect one. I won't slap a thin layer of paint on something and call it a day.

So I know - it might be scary and it might feel like I'm an a** or I that will ruin things for you and Herrbatka - but TRUST me. I've been doing this for years. I wont ruin anything, I understand why clutter is problematic AND things will roll out slowly and bit by bit with PLENTY of time for you to test it, try out, fiddle with it and refuse it if you don't like to. There are 13 designers right now working their little butts off producing brilliant things - so if you don't trust me, trust them.


Essentially: TL;DR - conservatism demands very very very good arguments - and I have taken both you and Herrbatkas arguments to heart. I don't ignore arguments or vague insults of me being stupid (or at least "lacking common sense").

I think the different application form factors / workflows for different devices is certainly worth more discussion. Perhaps in another thread though as a more generic discussion rather than dolphin specific?

I'm certainly not afraid of you breaking anything, please don't take it like that

Here's a list of reasons why not to change things unless there are good reasons to do so:

• Users adapt to what things work like. Especially older users will figure out how things work over time, and if you change things, it will be a major effort for them to figure out how to do what they did before. Which can be frustrating.
• Implementing new versions of existing, working features costs a lot of development effort, which might be spent better elsewhere.
• New code will have new bugs. There's no way around it. And it will take half a year or even longer for all those bugs to be found and fixed. If that time is not small compared to the rate you change things at, you're in trouble -- since a relevant part of your software is always in the "not really mature" state. And I think KDE is very much on the "changing things too fast" side of this problem already.
• New code will lack features compared to old code. When you rethink how something works, you will miss some points of how users used the old feature (https://xkcd.com/1172/). It will take time to fill those gaps.

In short: Do not understimate the value of a solution that has matured and been polished for two years. Getting your new solution to that point will probably take a similar amount of time. Still, it might be worth it of course! Just, take these drawbacks into account and weight them against the benefits the new solution will provide in the end.

I know this is all fairly general and doesn't really match that well with the topic, but oh well...

Greetings!

People adapt to all kinds of things (I would have enjoyed linking to the XKCD comic myself here). My grandfather when asked how he was doing at the end of his life in lung cancer replied "Oh you get used to it. Then you die". But to be fair here - one of my personal goals is making things adaptable to be easily changed. I want to compare for example Chakras sollution to the one used in other distros for desktop layout. I won't do anything that doesn't take old users to mind. The dolphin thing is a good example: my suggestion will minimize clutter, and add the possability to make Dolphin more usable in small wide screens without forcing changes on anyone and without heavy fiddling with it. There is nothing in that suggestion to warrant the reaction given.

New things will come as we speak - changes will come. New code will be implemented - I can't guarantee its function since I have no blessed clue how its done. What I can guarantee is that there are a ton of devs (you included) who will go "nah that doesn't work". Its already happened behind the scenes (which is why we have two tech advisors on board). Since I cannot argue the technical side of things and I trust the devs I'm in constant contact with - I do what they say. I know I'm good at what I do - I also know I suck at the things I suck at. But that is up to you guys. I will say loudly when something design wise is bad - I expect the same from you.

David: you're absolutely right.

Scummos - Herrbatka if you guys want to keep talking (I would like to) contact me here or on Google Plus (Jens Reuterberg, Scummos knows me there Herrbatka, add me and say who you are so I can add you back and we will have a hangout)

The dolphin thing is a good example: my suggestion will minimize clutter, and add the possability to make Dolphin more usable in small wide screens without forcing changes on anyone and without heavy fiddling with it. There is nothing in that suggestion to warrant the reaction given.

my suggestion will minimize clutter

Your suggestion will increase clutter in the configuration and probabbly make things worse in the main window by moving elements that does not belong there. Also, whene this option will pop-up? First start? Maybe user will have to do this manually in the configuration window which probabbly will take more time than simply grabbing this toolbar manually.

add the possability to make Dolphin more usable in small wide screens

The option is here already. It takes less than 30 seconds to do this. It could be worth attention if this would be global option, but this is not the case here.

without heavy fiddling with it

Current procedure is not "heavy fiddiling".

There is nothing in that suggestion to warrant the reaction given.

Adding option to save one or two mouse clicks, moving things around if there is only a free space, changing for the sake of change is a way to create mess. First define rules→define solutions. Coordinate changes in all applications. Ask about the opinion, and accept critic if it has the point. Just try to do it this way.