Desktop Metaphor

[Liam Proven]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:35, Rick Bensene <rickb at bensene.com> wrote:
>
> Earlier, I wrote:
> >> The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research >>Center) with the pioneering Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973,  which implemented  Alan Kay's concepts for the desktop metaphor that >>were postulated in 1970 using Smalltalk as the core operating system.
>
> To which Liam P. responded:
> >That, again, *was the point I was trying to make*.
>
> >We used to have a ton of prior art and alternative designs, and today,
> >they have all gone, with basically no impact.
>
> I get the point, now.
>
> I was looking at it more from a historical standpoint than from the view of /today/.   I totally agree with Liam as far as every other desktop paradigm prior to Win95 is dead from a practical standpoint, except possibly the (and it can be debated) the Apple desktop environment.
>
> I believe that the history of the desktop metaphor prior to Win95 certainly had an impact on the development of the Win95 desktop environment, and those concepts carry through to today, but in terms of desktop UIs created after Win95, I can't argue that any aren't derivatives of the Win95 environment.

Oh good. I am relieved. :-)

For clarity, for example -- GNOME 3 isn't Win95-like. But it was
designed by removing the bits MS said were its patented IP -- taskbar
with buttons for each app window, start menu, etc. -- and replacing
them with a dock-like app launcher/switcher and a full-screen iconic
app launcher.

It's also very instructive to look at the mockups of GNOME 3 before release:

http://www.vuntz.net/journal/post/2008/10/22/494-desktop-shell-from-the-user-experience-hackfest-general-overview

https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/DesignHistory

https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/Design/Iterations/AppBrowsingAlternative

https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/Design/Iterations/AppBrowsingAlternative02

Very text-heavy and cluttered.

Then the test versions of Unity started to appear in late 2010:

http://www.webupd8.org/2011/03/ubuntu-1104-alpha-3-is-out-screenshots.html

Then look how GNOME 3.0 looked!

https://www.gnome-look.org/p/1123050/

https://www.gnome-look.org/s/Gnome/p/1111022/

Unity, of course, is very visibly Mac OS X-like. Single panel at the
top, containing an app name at the left, then a global menu bar, then
status icons. Down the left, a Dock-like launcher containing both app
launchers and running apps (with an indicator to show they're open),
folder shortcuts and minimised windows. OS X defaults to putting this
at the bottom but I personally move it to the left -- more efficient
use of space on widescreens, and doesn't clash with menu bars on the
right. Window controls are on the left, so that if a window is
maximised, they don't get lose in among the indicators on the right...
but again, like on a Mac.

(NeXT's dock was on the right, but then its scrollbars were on the
left. There was also a wharf for minimised windows at the bottom,
which is a bit confusing.)

To keep things a _little_ different from OS X, Ubuntu's app name is
truncated, the global menus are hidden until mouseover, and the dock
doesn't grow or shrink, but these are fairly superficial differences.

The GNOME foundation refused Ubuntu's attempted code contributions,
but I think that it's visible that they took design cues from Unity.

But GNOME is trying to do something a little different. There's an
almost frantic effort to remove anything which isn't essential.
Generic app-global functions are moved into a single menu in the top
panel; there's no global menu bar. The launcher/dock thing is only
visible in overview mode, in other words, more aggressively hidden
than mere autohide. Maximise/minimise buttons are hidden by default,
and menu bars are discouraged, as are separate toolbars and separate
title bars -- all are merged into a single strip.

This is a desktop for people who don't do much window management. The
tooling is for people who run apps full-screen all the time, and
switch between them.

I don't work like that, so it annoys me.

But I digress.

I think the points here are two-fold:

[1] There is one extant FOSS Linux desktop that's totally
un-Windows-like... but the influence, albeit 2nd-hand, of the Mac is
plainly visible. Additionally, it was created by removing elements of
a Win95-style desktop and changing the functions of what was left, and
it shows.

[2] The eventual relative popularity of GNOME 3 at least demonstrates
people's willingness to _try_ something different if there are
benefits.

Budgie, TBH, I don't understand. I don't know why it exists.

It's basically a very jiggered-about Win9x desktop, with a sort of
top-panel-cum-taskbar and a dock bolted on. It does nothing you
couldn't achieve far easier by reconfiguring Xfce or LXDE, so I don't
know why they bothered. It seems to me to offer no benefits or
improvements. It's just a bit of a different spin on GNOME 3, making
it slightly more Mac-like, without being Mac-like enough to interest
me. :-)

-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053