Posted by member 2112 on 2003-05-22 18:20:21 link
:responsive rant
I've got no arguments against people who prefer "non-minimal" themes. But I don't think minimal themes should be dismissed because they "look" like windows/kde/gnome. Themes shouldn't be judged by there appearances. It's often the little differences you may never notice that make them significantly superior these standard shells.
Lets use the explorer shell for instance. Have you noticed that applications in the explorer taskbar sit a couple of pixels away from the edge of the screen? This means you have about a 200 x 20 pixel area to land your mouse before clicking. Most LS themes, however, have the applications on the taskbar sitting up against the edge of the screen. This means you can move your mouse infinite distance down without ever going past the application (assuming the taskbar is at the base of the screen). This effectively gives you a pixel area of 200 x 1.e+999999999999... (infinite). A small detail but the bigger something is the easier it is to click on. Elegance-16 has about a 20 x 1.e+999... area. What's going to be easier to switch applications with? Elegance or the explorer shell look alike?
Something the explorer shell doesn't take advantage of is the 5 most accessible points of a computer screen. The point where the mouse pointer is currently, and the four corners of the screen. For the same reason as above the corners of the screen are infinite in size and are the largest accessible areas for the mouse to find.
There are many design principles like this that can make an interface extremely accessible. My point is that just because a theme is shaped differently to windows/kde/gnome shells it doesn't mean it's better. And whilst it's good to have an "aesthetically pleasing" theme, I've used many themes that look amazing but simply don't lend themselves to practical use. Unless of course your primary use is to impress your friends.
I've got no arguments against people who prefer "non-minimal" themes. But I don't think minimal themes should be dismissed because they "look" like windows/kde/gnome. Themes shouldn't be judged by there appearances. It's often the little differences you may never notice that make them significantly superior these standard shells.
Lets use the explorer shell for instance. Have you noticed that applications in the explorer taskbar sit a couple of pixels away from the edge of the screen? This means you have about a 200 x 20 pixel area to land your mouse before clicking. Most LS themes, however, have the applications on the taskbar sitting up against the edge of the screen. This means you can move your mouse infinite distance down without ever going past the application (assuming the taskbar is at the base of the screen). This effectively gives you a pixel area of 200 x 1.e+999999999999... (infinite). A small detail but the bigger something is the easier it is to click on. Elegance-16 has about a 20 x 1.e+999... area. What's going to be easier to switch applications with? Elegance or the explorer shell look alike?
Something the explorer shell doesn't take advantage of is the 5 most accessible points of a computer screen. The point where the mouse pointer is currently, and the four corners of the screen. For the same reason as above the corners of the screen are infinite in size and are the largest accessible areas for the mouse to find.
There are many design principles like this that can make an interface extremely accessible. My point is that just because a theme is shaped differently to windows/kde/gnome shells it doesn't mean it's better. And whilst it's good to have an "aesthetically pleasing" theme, I've used many themes that look amazing but simply don't lend themselves to practical use. Unless of course your primary use is to impress your friends.