but …surely you could just do the same thing with the old design? artist’s rendition:

in fact, now i look at it, it makes them look even more similar once i collapse the sidebar

meh, subjectively i find that creates a “worst of both worlds” situation. but this comment was more about the futility of the development time that went into this specific feature

maybe; but if the location of menu buttons hints at their use then the hamburger should collapse the side drawer like the one on e.g. youtube, but i doubt it does

I had to look up Fitts’s law, and I’m not sure I get it. Could you explain what you mean?

basically; the speed that it takes to click a button is dependant on the size of the button and the distance from the cursor. however, buttons at the edge of the screen have effectively infinite size, as they can’t be overshot. the most used actions should be placed there, as they are the easiest to click by muscle memory (particularly the corners, as they have infinite size in both dimensions)

on windows, kde, cinnamon, etc.; by default the bottom left is start, the bottom right is show desktop (this one i can’t explain), and the top right is close maximised window. the top of the screen is also used for other window-related actions like minimise, restore, change csd tabs, etc.

gnome flouts this by having most of the top of the screen doing nothing (most of it is completely empty) apart from rarely used actions like calendar and power. and the bottom right and left doing nothing^[1]

did i explain well?

ETA: I kinda feel like mine was about KDE not being a fit for me personally, and yours was a slam on Gnome rather than a statement of personal preference.

nah it was very much a personal thing: some people like having a minimal and clutter-free feature set; i like having as many features as possible, because then i find features i didn’t even know i liked.^[2]

as for the top bar: this one confuses me - it just seems objectively bad. but obviously it’s not as some people clearly like it. i haven’t had anyone actually explain to me why, though

as someone who’s not scared of computers, i have no idea what they do. i assume the right one is icons/list/compact^[1] not a waffle menu, but the hamburger and kebab? i have no clue

every time i try to use gnome, i end up spending all my time going “dammit, where are all the bleeding features”

yep, that’s me

i’m not even sure it’s worth having an option. i don’t think i’d even have noticed a difference, apart from the menu button being in a slightly different place to every other gnome app. it’s fine; but it wasn’t worth the development time

well that’s better than i expected^[1]. thank you for answering!

who even decides what’s “modern” anymore?

just out of interest db0, did this thread in any way change your opinion on webp?^[1] i’m just constructing a pet theory on internet discussions

(sorry to necro an old thread, and i’m sure you have other things on your plate right now; i’m just interested)

(also completely off-topic; i’m surprised your blog still has the wordpress favicon. i would have thought you of all people would have changed that)

i’d never noticed how much the twitter logo looks like an upside-down sonic the hedgehog

You’re using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That’s not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain

actually that’s exactly what i was using it for.

Kicking a baby is not the same^[1] as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don’t map to each other.

if you read carefully, you’ll see that writing is analogous to creating an artwork, and kicking a baby is analogous to doing something that someone has asked you not to, and you’re continuing anyways. if you read even more carefully, you’ll see that i implied i wasn’t making a moral comment on ai, piracy, or even kicking babies

You can’t dodge flaws in your argument by adding a “don’t respond unless you agree with me” clause on your comment.

i didn’t intend to. i did it so i wouldn’t have to waste my time arguing with those who don’t understand analogies. however i seem to be doing that anyways, so if you’ll excuse me, i’m going to stop

edit: okay, i’ve been reading the rest of this thread, and you clearly don’t understand analogy. i have no idea why you clicked on my comment

did you click the thing saying that you understand analogies?

Are you really surprised I’m replying to you when you keep replying?

well yes, actually. i have time to sit down over breakfast, read a few articles, maybe reply to a few comments

you clearly live such a busy lifestyle you haven’t time to read an article before making an asinine comment

And yes, you are merely confirming my point. There is no use for me personally. I would only have to use it and endure slower internet so that others benefit. Still doesn’t change the fact that for me personally there is no advantage. You can argue all you want but that’s what it comes down to for most people.

well that’s a pretty fuckin stupid viewpoint in my opinion. “i’m not going to help protect the careers and possibly lives of people in authoritarian countries, because i’d have to install a programme and possibly even launch it a couple of times per month”. running folding@home did me no advantage, i still did it.

And if you keep replying I’ll keep replying. No need to be surprised about that.

don’t worry, i won’t be. i was being flippant because i thought you an idiot, but it turns out you’re willfully ignorant.

i’m not making a moral comment on anything, including piracy. i’m saying “but it’s part of my established workflow” is not an excuse for something morally wrong.

Thing is… if I have to do that for every time someone linkdrops an article, I’ll have no time left in my day.

if you spent less time writing comments about articles you haven’t read, you might have more time. do you do this in other walks of life? wander into restaurants you’ve never eaten at and announce “i don’t think there’s really any reason to order the fish”?

And it seems I was right that I have no real reason to use tor.

okay, i’ll sum the article up for you. the more people that use tor, the more it protects vulnerable people. journalists writing exposés about corrupt governments, refugees trying to flee, etc. the more normal people using tor, the more they get lost in the crowd. it’s nothing to do with whether you have any reason to use tor, that’s irrelevant. by using it, you’re helping those in vulnerable positions. happy? now go write something inciteful

pirating photoshop is a well-understood part of many peoples’ workflows. that doesn’t make it legal or condoned by adobe

okay. perhaps instead of wasting your time writing an entire paragraph, you should read the article and you’ll find out that that entire paragraph was irrelevant

it’s actually not an article about the pros and cons of tor. it could not be summed up in bullet points about the pros and cons of tor

i’ll admit to being a little facetious before, but i implore you to read articles before commenting on them