tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post2266881165200149263..comments2013-03-14T00:21:15.790-07:00Comments on tyler james on ubuntu: Workspaces, Part iv - The things I heard from youTyler Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13414942361992082472noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-40720339819905864022010-05-01T12:08:48.444-07:002010-05-01T12:08:48.444-07:00Have you considered that Panel application shortcu...Have you considered that Panel application shortcuts are counterproductive compared to the Desktop selector (virtual desktops brings vmware and xen to mind)? <br /><br />In my opinion the 'workspace' metaphor suits best. My computer is a printing press, a lab, a library, a communications center, it's an entire factory housed in a little box. Each workspace should be project oriented and, as you mentioned, would not need to be organized suitably to be cloned and the same setup used by the other workstations.<br /><br />At present, we cannot use the desktop selector in this way because we need a way to clone the tools across the workspaces in an efficient manner. If I want Chromium on space 1 and 3 I can open two instances and place them there but I wouldn't want to have to do that each time I rebooted.<br /><br />Furthermore, there's a severe limitation to our project environment in that we must duplicate various tools and distribute them individually across work areas with no easy way to share the clipboard. That most commonly translates to web-browser data, in my case.<br /><br />I overcome the most part of these problems by using Chromium. I can drag a tab out, down to the next desktop and onto the other instance of Chromium. Storing it as a virtual machine image allows me to save and restore the state of my desktops, apps and data while I reboot the host Windows machine. I call it Ubuntoogle and at present I carry it on my key-chain USB device so I can use it and demonstrate the awesomeness that is Ubuntu, on any Windows machine, wherever I may roam.MrUbuntooglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12216438115318520362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-53211727959901261152010-05-01T09:02:44.389-07:002010-05-01T09:02:44.389-07:00Kind of late but heres my reply
Video Reply becau...Kind of late but heres my reply<br /><br />Video Reply because i dont like typing =)<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgLK8eYAg0Agotbletunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-22360981393464175372010-04-29T16:53:52.273-07:002010-04-29T16:53:52.273-07:00Please don't think I was contradicting your ge...Please don't think I was contradicting your general conclusion—I described it as "insufficient", not incorrect.<br /><br />I agree that users want order, but I was trying to point out that users <em>don't choose</em> to have an even number of workspaces to achieve that order; <em>what they choose is ease of use</em>, via a grid arrangement. That choice then results in an even number <em>only as a side effect</em>. You refer to the use of an even number of desktops twice, as if it's actually important, when what you should have referred to at those points was <em>use of grid layouts</em>.<br /><br />In this regard, you appear to make a basic mistake of inexperienced analysts, in confusing cause and effect, akin to writing that "people drive cars to burn petrol", rather than "people drive cars to travel quickly, burning petrol as a consequence". You say that my comment matches your thought process, <strong>but you didn't include those details in your post</strong>, which is why I used the word "insufficient", because in the professional reports of analyses I'm more used to dealing with—which I appreciate you may not have been trained to write, and probably weren't aiming for anyway—simply presenting data followed by a conclusion isn't enough. Without an explanation of <em>why</em> the data lead to any particular conclusion, those conclusions cannot be properly judged. It doesn't matter how brilliant or insightful your thoughts are, if you don't explain them, then how are we to know how much faith to put in the conclusions you declare?<br /><br />In adding my comments I was trying to help the analysis by providing (what I thought was) that explanation. If I've done that accurately, then I'm glad. And if I can help out with any future analyses, I'd be glad to do that too.Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-23007733165473152312010-04-29T13:44:59.593-07:002010-04-29T13:44:59.593-07:00cldx3000: I just didn't know how to get it to ...cldx3000: I just didn't know how to get it to more people. Just used what voice I had.<br /><br />Anonymous said: Actually we had people who used just one workspace participate as well. Some of the most constructive comments came from them. And my goal was not to see how many people use them, but how they are currently used.<br /><br />Jimmy Cederholm: I bookmarked it, and I'll just have to let it ruminate in my head a bit. I like it though. Similar to things I have considered.<br /><br />Orjanv, Xubean, Tom: Thanks! Been working hard for a week or so. :D<br /><br />Marc: Exactly my point. People want order, and within the constraints of a geometric, 4 sided screen, it makes perfect sense. Your comment does not contradict my conclusion, its exactly something i considered. People actually often stated they had four but only used three, but it looked better. That important data just like everything else I found. It means I wouldn't want to impose something that feels off balanced, for one. So thank you for the analysis, really, but thats exactly the thought process I went through, and just didn't post here. The exact order of commonality of workspaces is exactly as you've described. Regardless of actual need, people set up a certain number of desktops based on other factors, and then try to acclimate themselves to that particular layout.<br /><br />Interestingly, many people who used 2 claim they, at one time, used far more, but scaled back.<br /><br />but, yes, your comment has valid points, I just wanted you to know I went through the same process and wasn't surprised by these points either. :DTyler Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13414942361992082472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-75934289087014079472010-04-29T12:29:12.579-07:002010-04-29T12:29:12.579-07:00"Users want order in their desktop. For most ..."Users want order in their desktop. For most people, it makes the most sense to use even numbers."<br />I think this conclusion is insufficient and overlooks the arithmetic, geometry, human weaknesses, and imposed defaults involved.<br /><br />First the maths. Put simply, it's much easier to make a grid from even numbers. Let's look at the arrangements:<br /><br />1: 1 single workspace<br />2: 1 across by 2 down, or 2 across x 1 down<br />3: 1x3, 3x1<br />4: 1x4, 2x2, 4x1<br />5: 1x5, 5x1<br />6: 1x6, 2x3, 3x2, 6x1<br />7: 1x7, 7x1<br />8: 1x8, 2x4, 4x2, 8x1<br />9: 1x9, 3x3, 9x1<br /><br />In each case, the even number has more combinations than the preceding odd number, and with more combinations comes a greater likelihood of use.<br /><br />Even domination is further accounted for by the necessity of one single line for odd numbers less than nine—the first odd multiple of the first odd number greater than one. As a line grows, the maximum travel between desktops increases. Adding rows/columns reduces that distance, so is preferable. And when a user adds a second row/column, they end up with an even number of workspaces (even if they don't need all of them) because odd numbers just don't divide by two.<br /><br />This grid use also explains why 9 is more popular than 8: in a 3x3 arrangement, the user has a maximum of two workspaces to move across to reach another, compared to three or seven, respectively, for a 2x4 or 1x8 grid. And they get an extra workspace to boot!<br /><br />And now the human weaknesses, which could also be described as striving for efficiency. I've already mentioned that limiting the maximum travel is preferable as it saves effort and time, explaining the popularity of a desktop wall over a line—and I'd bet that those line users used fewer workspaces. But another factor comes into play: the user has to keep track of where everything has been put. As the number of spaces increases, the demands placed on the user become tougher, and popularity wanes.<br /><br />The seven-workspace arrangement falls at a particularly user-unfriendly nexus of all these factors, requiring a displeasingly long single line as well as being overly taxing on memories. It's hardly surprising nobody claimed to use that number.<br /><br />Finally the defaults. The spike at two workspaces is accounted for by being the default. Some people are happy with what's given to them, and see no reason to change. Four is similarly blessed, as the default for the Compiz cube, as well as being the older panel default, brought forward by long-time users.<br /><br />So yes, users want order, but, perhaps more importantly, they also want to keep track of and move between windows with a minimum of effort. Because computers are supposed to make things easier, right?Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-14381739862668907202010-04-29T12:01:15.415-07:002010-04-29T12:01:15.415-07:00I must be really odd, since I use 7 workspaces.
O...I must be really odd, since I use 7 workspaces.<br /><br />Other than that, I agree with everything.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06521462820517167511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-66409006833704532362010-04-29T06:08:21.152-07:002010-04-29T06:08:21.152-07:00Nice Work. I'm amazed at the amount of work yo...Nice Work. I'm amazed at the amount of work you put into this! :)Xubeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13642193885092266172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-91484195872731638202010-04-29T03:46:28.509-07:002010-04-29T03:46:28.509-07:00nice research!nice research!orjanvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623401631035898662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-75491881444572976092010-04-29T02:36:45.039-07:002010-04-29T02:36:45.039-07:00Jimmy Cederholm, that is a very interesting idea. ...Jimmy Cederholm, that is a very interesting idea. It has a bit of the taste of one of the few really awesome Mac applications that never made it to other platforms, DragThing. I loved it and it was one of the few things I've missed since switching to GNU/Linux.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-65473682602207268262010-04-29T02:02:26.418-07:002010-04-29T02:02:26.418-07:00I guess people using more than one workspace were ...I guess people using more than one workspace were more likely to participate in the survey than people not using multiple workspaces.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-15454671939694592612010-04-29T01:46:14.472-07:002010-04-29T01:46:14.472-07:00Awesomely layered out. If the survey would've ...Awesomely layered out. If the survey would've reached out to maybe a little more Persons it would be more representative.<br /><br />Still an awesome starting point for what future Ubuntu UI Design changes should focus on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691940465509721748.post-78448769364753466182010-04-29T01:44:43.462-07:002010-04-29T01:44:43.462-07:00Posted this on omgubuntu, but could be worth menti...Posted this on omgubuntu, but could be worth mentioning here as well. A more up-to-date version of what i describe here is what I would like to see:<br /><br />http://jiceland.com/software/wm.phpJimmy Cederholmhttp://jiceland.comnoreply@blogger.com