tl/dr:
They’re an old spec from 2002
They’re too small to click for people with increased accessibility needs
They serve the needs of app publishers (making their app visible at all times), not those of the user
-> There are too many of them
-> They look bad
They don’t.
Programs only show themselves when you take an action (hit a key) or when it’s urgent (in a notification).
Otherwise they’re supposed to stay invisible.
So in Gnome philosophy, your sensor would notify you when the temp goes critical and otherwise you’d have to open it manually.
thank you for this it is interesting to know their rationale. but i still disagree with it, i think it makes life using the computer more comfortable, it is a good way of managing apps that usually operate unattended and everyone is used to it and expects or relies on this functionality.
Counterpoint: The main criticism of Gnome seems to be that it doesn’t match the design philosophy of Windows 95, which users are used to.
But at this point, an entire human generation later, and 14 years after the release of Gnome 3, I don’t think that’s a valid criticism anymore.
the above tl;dr forgot something massive: all current protocols are unsafe (e.g. need exporting the entirety of org.kde.* in dbus) and/or only work on X11
Gnome’s official stance on that matter:
https://blogs.gnome.org/aday/2017/08/31/status-icons-and-gnome/
tl/dr:
They’re an old spec from 2002
They’re too small to click for people with increased accessibility needs
They serve the needs of app publishers (making their app visible at all times), not those of the user
-> There are too many of them
-> They look bad
Ok but how do programs under Gnome display state? (temperature and stuff like that)
They don’t.
Programs only show themselves when you take an action (hit a key) or when it’s urgent (in a notification).
Otherwise they’re supposed to stay invisible.
So in Gnome philosophy, your sensor would notify you when the temp goes critical and otherwise you’d have to open it manually.
thank you for this it is interesting to know their rationale. but i still disagree with it, i think it makes life using the computer more comfortable, it is a good way of managing apps that usually operate unattended and everyone is used to it and expects or relies on this functionality.
Counterpoint: The main criticism of Gnome seems to be that it doesn’t match the design philosophy of Windows 95, which users are used to.
But at this point, an entire human generation later, and 14 years after the release of Gnome 3, I don’t think that’s a valid criticism anymore.
They’re useful, “old” is no excuse. Mobile OS have something similiar. No, don’t create a new spec, you’re bad at that kind of thing.
Make them bigger? I can do that on XFCE.
Again, they are useful to the user. Just give the user a way to control which to display or not.
Your design team sucks
And that’s why i don’t like Gnome (and Gtk for that matter); they prioritize their skewed visions over everything else, including usability.
the above tl;dr forgot something massive: all current protocols are unsafe (e.g. need exporting the entirety of org.kde.* in dbus) and/or only work on X11
Insecure? It is run by the user, communicates only with things run by the user.
So things like sandboxing or even not running everything as root should exist.