[dnr]

I don't even use Gnome, but the behavior in the gtk open and save dialogs changed in the same way a few years ago, so I'm going to assume it's the same issue:

I hate hate hate the new search behavior, and would go back to the old ("type-ahead") behavior in a second if there was a setting I could toggle.

I don't think it's "bad faith", I think it's just weird group-think and having things other than the users as priorities. The amount of condescension and misplaced confidence displayed in that thread is impressive. If you (or anyone reading this) is affiliated with the Gnome project, please reconsider how you handle and incorporate user feedback into your products.

[zxzax]

>The amount of condescension and misplaced confidence displayed in that thread is impressive.

I would say that assuming condescension is assuming bad faith. If there is a comment that is truly rude and dismissive, it should be reported as a code of conduct violation. Otherwise, please don't assume the response is trying to put you down because it's disagreeing on technical grounds. Any bug report has to go through technical review, and the developers will almost always have more information about the code than the reporter.

>I hate hate hate the new search behavior, and would go back to the old ("type-ahead") behavior in a second if there was a setting I could toggle.

To give another opinion, I personally don't feel the same way about this, and I don't think it would be much benefit for there to be a setting.

>If you (or anyone reading this) is affiliated with the Gnome project, please reconsider how you handle and incorporate user feedback into your products.

I'm not affiliated, I'm just expressing my personal opinion on this, as you are. Not all user feedback is created equal. Sometimes, the developer must firmly say no because something isn't technically viable. Users don't decide what is technically viable or not, only the developer tasked with writing the code can make that decision. Sometimes, the developer is faced with a choice between competing requirements, and it's not possible to fulfill both technically. Once the decision has been firmly made, there's little purpose to accepting further feedback after that. Committing to a solution means the developer has to accept the effects of it, losing users is always a possible effect, but so is users changing their mind.

[dnr]

You're right, condescension is the wrong word. I apologize.

I do think it's misplaced confidence, though. Look at the upvotes/downvotes on the comments in the type-ahead issue thread. What the gnome developers are saying is clearly unpopular, and what the person who filed the issue and others are saying is clearly popular. Yes, of course, that's not a representative sample of all users. But was there ever a representative sample taken? What gives them the confidence to declare that the search behavior is superior, and so far superior that it must completely subsume the old behavior without even an option? No evidence is presented in that thread. They only say "This was a decision made a while ago, because people believed that searching can provide the same functionality." On what evidence is that belief based on, and what would be sufficient to overturn it? How large of a user outcry would there need to be? If this were my software and 59 people thought that one of my decisions was wrong (the largest vote count in that thread), I would start to strongly question my assumptions. No such questioning appears to be happening here.

To respond to your specific replies:

> technical review

This is a design question, not a bug. It's not about the code. The complaint is obviously valid.

> I don't think it would be much benefit for there to be a setting

Of course, anyone who will keep a setting in one position doesn't see value in there being a setting. I don't either: I'd be even happier if it always worked the old way, instead of a setting. But that's what settings are for, where there's multiple valid ways for something to work and not everyone agrees.

> technically viable

The old behavior is obviously technically viable, it worked that way for many years. So again, that's irrelevant, unless you're arguing that a setting to switch the behavior is too technically difficult, which seems implausible.

> Once the decision has been firmly made, there's little purpose to accepting further feedback after that.

Of course there is! If you don't accept further feedback, how will you ever know if your decision was wrong? This is the crux of it: a decision was "firmly" made by some developer based on who-knows-what criteria, and then no feedback is accepted, no matter how loud.

> losing users

I'm not a gnome user and never will be, but I'm forced to accept these decisions because they affect the gtk file dialogs also, and I can't exactly quit every piece of software that uses gtk.