> Otherwise, you get to irritate 40-60% of your users.
The survey says nothing about how strongly folks hold that preference. I may prefer Schwepps Ginger Ale, but I'm not going to be irritated when offered Canada Dry instead. That "40-60%" number is a ceiling, not a floor.
Consider eclipse. It allows the user to configure every. Single. Thing. And in doing so makes configuration difficult because there are so many options. Sane defaults and a consistent environment are better, imho.
Sane defaults and extremely detailed configuration options can coexist.
Those users who like the sane defaults can just stick with them. Those users who don't like those defaults can use the configuration options to fine-tune their experience.
If you have loads of options it can be almost impossible to know the options. Even basic things can be difficult to find. This is usually "solved" by things like an "advanced" button but that means you'll just end up clicking the advanced button in loads of places.
IMO sane defaults and extremely detailed configuration go against each other. The detailed configuration makes it impossible to find the option you want.
Yeah. A great point. I do find eclipse to be too configurable, and part of why I use IntelliJ (for Java). Apple software is generally on the other end of that spectrum, which annoys many people; although you'll notice that even there you can put the bar on the left, right or bottom.
I don't think one is particularly superior to the other, and every configuration option is another thing to test, making sure everything else window related renders properly. Also every configuration option is another thing to confuse users with.
I would much prefer a single well thought out consistent interface than a "build your own" grab bag.
I don't have a multiple monitor setup for my Ubuntu instance, but when I am running windows on multiple monitors, the side of the taskbar (when I don't have it configured to the bottom) makes a huge difference. Depending on which monitor I have it on (let's assume I have the taskbar on the rightmost monitor), havign it on the left gives me a few pixels to hit an icon on it (and worse if it's set to hide automatically) whereas having it on the right gives me an infinite number of pixels.
IOW, the configuration is important even if there is a preferred side.
Right or wrong, this does seem more inline with "the Gnome way."
It's also why I stopped using Gnome (and in fact, Ubuntu all together). But I suspect I was never their target user, and that's OK. If they can make it easier for more typical computer users, good for them, and they should stick to what works.
Sadly it feels like the "target user" of Gnome (and thus Freedesktop related projects) are dyed in the wool Mac users, but the Gnome people will not admit this even as they drive away more and more existing Linux users.
They are clearly not targeting Mac users, as Gnome/GTK programs continue to insist on the Windows shortcut model of overloading Control. KDE/Qt programs are at least configurable, with effort, to the Mac (and historical Unix) model of a Meta key for GUI shortcuts and Control for control characters.
where are you defaulting? do you need to add an api to let the app developers know the window direction so they can create apps consistent with the env?
Options are a cost, are the user going to be irritated or just have a few laugh at their muscle memory for a few days (that was my reaction when I switched window control position from gnome to unity)?
The survey says nothing about how strongly folks hold that preference. I may prefer Schwepps Ginger Ale, but I'm not going to be irritated when offered Canada Dry instead. That "40-60%" number is a ceiling, not a floor.