THE GUI SHOULD BE BETTER

[testman]

Go glow in the dark in some deeper part of the internet

[Collapsar77]

In the spirit of brainstorming-- a couple of thoughts I've had in the interim.

I'd mentioned before the idea of bringing up a phone-password style grid to formalize the gestures. I think you could maybe combine that with the weapon-wheel concept to make something like is pictured below.

Call this a first draft. I call it a "Constellation Wheel". As is, it has the power of gestures but without the uncertainty about what you actually wanted to invoke which can cause gestures to misfire. It does require more precise aiming than the weapon wheel, which is a problem. It also doesn't really tell you what you're invoking, you kind of have to just know. One way you can help the precise aiming problem is by tiling regular polygons like hexagons instead. I have a couple of pictures of what this "Hexagesture" layout would look like.

Its ADVANTAGE over the weapon-wheel is that it can invoke a stupidly-large number of things quickly. The weapon wheel example is amazing but I'm still not sure how well it scales once you're choosing between more than a dozen items. Granted, there are ways to sub-categorize-- programs, programs beginning with numbers 1-9, programs beginning with A-E, etc. Heck, I can even somewhat imagine algorithmically adjusting categorizations based on how much is installed where-- like if you install a BUNCH of programs starting with A, maybe it goes from "programs A-E" to "programs A" and "programs B-E". You get the point. But somewhere in there the inherent complexity of the maze of sequential gestures you're navigating is maybe gonna become a problem.

I think the weapon wheel will be fastest for commonly used items and actions but will struggle at picking specific items out of large sets. The "constellation gestures" or "hexigestures" concept will, conversely, not be as good as the weapon wheel for common items but would excel at picking specific items out of large sets and might be considered as a way to supplement it. It is, however, less intuitive. It's also potentially targeting a small subset of items-- ones I need/want to invoke quickly, and use often enough to remember a gesture for, but have to pick out of a large set. I think it would be best for things like programs. It could use further tweaking or UI improvements to help deal with the cognitive burden of use-- that is, the fact you have to memorize the gestures, in the current form. Other solutions would be better for sorting pictures or text files out of large sets.

One other thing to note-- it's occurred to me that you can shrink the sets of things you search, and make searches more efficient, by constraining searches to things that actually exist on a system. That may make sub-searches within the weapon wheel more doable? So, EG, I have 13 programs that start with A but only 11 unique second-letters (EG-- aC, aD, aL). Not really a new idea, per se. The Win 10 search honestly already makes use of this. Within typing a few letters it shows you only the things that match them on the system. Unfortunately it also automatically searches the web if it can't find the thing or you mis-spelled it, which I hate. I'd love to be able to constrain it to only let me search things it thinks exist.

I never asked, Ross-- you mentioned that you often find yourself trying to locate a program but not knowing the name. I'd sort of toyed with date-ranges as a possible filter for getting at that kind of information, but I never explicitly asked-- what kind of info DO you usually know about programs you can't recall the names of?

[Isaiah]

6 hours ago, Ross Scott said:

I'm not really looking to get into an argument about this, but you're accusing me of being contradictory, which I don't appreciate unless it's accurate.  So please, specify with no uncertainty, what did I say regarding targets where I'm being contradictory? 

I already gave specific examples but I never wanted to get into an argument or upset you so much either. I was Just trying to point out what I thought were some issues with your complaints but that was obviously a huge mistake on my part. So let's just move on.

Quote

Listen, you say you're trying to help me, but you're either concern trolling now, or you're unaware of your own bias on this to say something like that.  Yes, I'm not an expert, and yes I'm seeking help from others.  But insinuating I provided no proof or effort on this topic?  Why do think the video was so long?

You're misreading my comment completely. I'm talking about the effort to actually create the ultimate GUI itself. Not the effort you put into making the video. Most of the "truth" and "proof" presented in the video is also debatable because of it's subjective or vague nature. So they're not as definitive as you think.

 

In any case, my efforts to help here seem to have all been in vain so I'll try to restrain from giving any further feedback. But I do sincerely hope you find some kind of solution.

 

The real shame though is that your further comments on what you actually want had inspired me to think of an exciting new gui concept that I was planning to work on. But the fact I have upset you so much now has really demotivated me from even getting started on it because I fear it will just be another waste of time

[POINTS:]

Great video by Ross. Hard to believe that Mouse Gesture video (easystroke) was made 10 years ago! The technology has been available for years.

I started using easystroke (mouse gestures) and gnome pie (pie menu) for about a week and it has been useful but not perfect. The gestures are nice if I need to something once (copy, paste, minimize, maximize, move to other screen, etc.). But if I want to something like scroll through Browser tabs, then I tend to move my hand to the keyboard and use a hotkey. The Pie Menu is convenient avoiding the need to move the mouse to an edge of the screen to launch an app.

 

I don't see moving the hand from the mouse to the keyboard going away. Typing needs 2 hands (one-handed layouts seem too slow) and the analog mouse movement is needed too. It could be reduced, like with a separate numpad (i.e. not on the keyboard but a separate USB device) or remap hotkeys for the arrow keys.

 

I could see Ross switching to Linux. I did the same when Windows 7 came out a decided to go from Windows XP to Linux instead. Ross used a 3rd-party file explorer to have 2 windows in one. I could never find a good one for Windows so that's one of the reasons that I switched. If Ross did switch, it would be another set of problems to get setup and running but some of the customization is built in to the OS.

[DukeNukem 2417]

Not gonna lie, I only stick with Windows because it's almost a Pavlovian thing of being so used to it that my brain would take ages to acclimate to anything else.  I regret the fact that I was "raised on Windows", and never even knew how to properly run games in DOS (despite having an uncle who avidly collected the latest shareware back in the day).  After watching Ross's video, though, I'd welcome a new, improved GUI over ANY version of Windows any day of the week.   Ross made so many good points in the video that I can't help but think of an alternate universe where the anti-trust lawsuit went a completely different way and GUI development blossomed in the years following. 

[Ross Scott]

On 6/20/2020 at 9:07 PM, Isaiah said:

I already gave specific examples but I never wanted to get into an argument or upset you so much either. I was Just trying to point out what I thought were some issues with your complaints but that was obviously a huge mistake on my part. So let's just move on.

Okay, I think I found the problem.  I thought I made a post explaining it in detail, but it looks like that never happened, so I understand why you think I'm sounding irrational and irritable on this.  Let me spell it out clearly then, I think it will clear up the confusion (I'm hiding the text so it doesn't flood the chat):

 

Spoiler

 

You said this:

 

Spoiler

 

"

For example, in your video you complained about small GUI elements that demand too much precision from the user and recommended a kind of runway vs helipad approach, reasoning that "the less precise you need to be the faster you our". Okay, fair enough. But here in the forums you complain about increased travel distances being inefficient, which your very own "runway" concept would actually produce. The very mouse gestures you love being the perfect example of that

 

But for the sake of argument let's assume for a moment that greater travel distances are less efficient. Well with the alt-tab method I mentioned you instantly see all open app names at once with very helpful preview images, which is an objectively faster way to identify them than your method of moving the cursor all the way down to the bottom of the screen and across each icon to see the name of each, one at a time. And there displayed in the center of the screen closer to where the cursor most likely already is. And finally you only have to move your cursor to the exact app you want once identified. Meaning the alt-tab method is faster either way because it requires less travel distance and precision overall.

"

 

I said this

 

Spoiler

 

"

No, I think you're misunderstanding me.  Ideally, I want accuracy to barely matter.  Take that pie menu I demonstrated.  Say I want the upper left, so I flick the mouse that direction.  Maybe I flick it 10% of the screen, maybe I flick it 60%.  Ideally, it won't matter.  It detects I moved it to the upper left, so it draws a new menu where I am (or returns me to the center automatically).  In other words, the GUI adapts to my movement and intentions, not the other way around.  I don't see what's contradictory about this.  When you press most buttons or a D-PAD in a videogame, does it matter EXACTLY how hard you pressed it, or just that you pressed it?  It's a similar concept. 

"

 

 

That explains HALF of the not-a-contradiction-that-you-think-is-a-contradiction part.  Like in Back to the Future "Where we're going we don't need roads", I'm talking about a scenario where we don't even need TARGETS.  In other words, the travel time becomes irrelevant, because it becomes automatically optimized for the user.

 

If I just have to swipe left for a function to occur, I can swipe a little bit left, or I can make a big swipe left.  They'll both get the job done.  The reason it's FASTER is because I can be sloppy and not even THINK about it.  I don't have to concentrate and hit a target.  That saves me time and brainpower.  Now a short motion will be faster IF I don't spend time thinking about and concentrating on doing it.  The time savings comes from having no target and requiring no precision.  Again, this sort of transcends Fitt's Law.  There's no contradiction on the travel time because it can be as short or as long as you want to be.  All that matters is the total time required for the action, which is going to be more rapid than almost all scenarios of having targets.  I hope this part makes sense.

 

MISSING HALF OF THE EXPLANATION:

Alt / Win Tab in Windows still isn't as efficient as the dock for multiple reasons.  Some of these are subtle, others are not.  I hope you follow here:

 

-I think what I didn't state overtly is I'm assuming you SELECT the appropriate program you want.  So if you have 12 programs open, you're not JUST trying to get their names, you ALSO  want to SELECT the program you want.

 

-First off, Win-tab is not faster.  There's a delay in arranging the squares before the names come up.  Now this is only milliseconds, but I can literally scroll through all my items on the dock during the time I'm waiting on the system.  However, alt-tab is near-instantaneous, so we'll go with that.

 

-This is a subtle inefficiency, but it's still there.  If you have all the names displayed at once for many tasks, this is all over the screen and your eyes may have to hunt around to know where the name of what you're trying to find is.  Using the dock method, the name is always going to appear directly above where the highlight icon is.  Now just so you don't think I'm contradicting later, I WOULD want the screen flooded with info like this if I was browsing through a LOT of files, like hundreds.  But for open tasks, it's slightly faster to have the visuals a little more concentrated.  Again though, this is subtle.  See, you say it's a contradiction that I have to move through the names my way, HOWEVER, since I know exactly where the names are going to appear, it could STILL be faster.  It's not necessarily a contradiction.  It could be on average, it's still faster!  Even though the information is presented instantaneously, my EYES have more travel time now compared to the dock.  I don't have hard evidence on this however, but I hope you at least understand that this isn't a black and white thing.

 

-Next, the inefficiency differs depending on how you're using Alt-Tab.

If it's keyboard only:  You either have to hit tab multiple times until you find your target, then if you overshoot, go through it all over again, OR use the arrow keys to navigate it.  That means that if you only use one hand, this becomes a less efficient method because you're having to concentrate more (or I do, anyway) and hit the tab key the appropriate number of times.  So if you need the 10th program, you need to hit the tab key 10 times.  Alternately, you can use the arrow keys, but now you require TWO hands to accomplish your task and it takes your hand off the mouse, plus navigating via arrows is a little inefficient, it depends on how many programs there are.  So either you're spamming the tab key, or you're having to take your hand off the mouse and it may STILL be less efficient.

 

If it's the mouse and keyboard:

Here's where it honestly depends.  The travel time depends on where your cursor was when you pressed alt-tab, however, the targets are a decent size. However, this still has some inefficiencies:

1. There's still the visual hunting for the name which I mentioned earlier (though I admit this is subtle)

2. You can accidentally close your program because now "x's" are available as you navigate.  This means it takes a little more concentration not to hit them and increases the chance of accidentally closing a program you want open.  That reduces the efficiency a little bit (though I confess being able to middle click to close this way is awesome)

3. Here is where Fitt's Law is debatable.  The dock is a smaller target, but requires less travel time.  In this case the menu is a larger target, but requires more travel time.  It would take trials to determine which is faster.

4. This way REQUIRES 2 hands.  One for alt-tabbing, one for mouse navigation.  This part is not a subtle difference.  The dock can be 100% one hand. Now you can argue the trade off is worth it, but for something I do a LOT, like switching programs, the efficiency of only needing one hand is certainly worthy of consideration.

 

Anyway, I hope that settles why I don't think I made a contradiction on this and I'm not just talking out of my ass here.  What I'm measuring is not actual travel distance, but total time and effort.  In some scenarios, that might look like I'm saying opposite things, but it's probably not contradictory since I could be looking at a different metric than you thought I was.  I'm not looking for subservience from people to agree with what I prefer, but if you're going to say I'm WRONG about something, back it up (like the point on memorization, that WAS a contradiction and I'll own that).

 

 

Now HERE is where I don't think you have a leg to stand on:

 

Quote

You're misreading my comment completely. I'm talking about the effort to actually create the ultimate GUI itself. Not the effort you put into making the video. Most of the "truth" and "proof" presented in the video is also debatable because of it's subjective or vague nature. So they're not as definitive as you think.

No, I didn't think you were talking about the work put in on the video, I took you at face value, saying I'm putting the burden of GUI enlightenment on everyone else except me.  Let's quote what you said:

 

On 6/19/2020 at 6:23 PM, Isaiah said:

The problem here is that you're actually putting the burden of finding GUI "enlightenment" on the shoulders of everyone except yourself. The video could be summarized as "This all sucks and could be way better but I'm not an expert so I want you to show me how to fix it".  No offense but this is the easiest criticism anyone can make about literally anything because it doesn't require any real proof or effort from the person making it.

Whether you meant it or not, your tone is kind of insulting here, man.  If I wasn't taking any of the burden, I would have demonstrated NO solutions to inefficiencies I mentioned, I would have given NO examples of visuals I liked better, I wouldn't have pointed out specifics for more rapid deployment of that Linux pie menu, I wouldn't have listed maybe a dozen programs for doing things like changing icons, changing the taskbar, adding desktop labels, more rapid deployment of shortcuts, showing PAST solutions I had for the start menu, changing the visual appearance, etc.

 

You say I'm misreading, but YOUR WORDS said I put the burden on everyone except myself.  If that were true, I would have criticized everything, and offered NO solutions.  Now were my solutions complete?  Not by a longshot, it's true, I DON'T have all the answers, but I also tried to show enough examples to show that I'm not just imagining this stuff either.  Again, think what you want, but I still don't see how you came to that conclusion.

 

 

 

Quote

 

In any case, my efforts to help here seem to have all been in vain so I'll try to restrain from giving any further feedback. But I do sincerely hope you find some kind of solution.

No, damn it.  BY ALL MEANS propose GUI solutions, that was the whole point!  I plan to use your keymouse link in the followup video as it is!  I didn't know about that!  Just maybe be careful before making accusations, that's all.  Try to focus more on new ideas / software, that sort of thing.  Getting into a giant debate is unlikely to solve much, whereras I think more brainstorming would be way more constructive considering the state of the GUI today.  I WANT people proposing more ideas, screenshots, etc.

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Ross Scott (see edit history)

[Juju]

Just wanted to add a little something here. I found it surprising when you mentioned you didn't like dark themes because you're bound to run into something white when browsing the Internet and that's always unpleasant. I've been using dark themes everywhere for a few years now, and recently I ran into this same problem. I found an interesting solution, however.

 

There's an extension (for Firefox and Chrome, as far as I know) called TamperMonkey that can run simple scripts to change your browsing experience. With this, you can add custom code on a script to change the background on most sites. It doesn't work on all sites, of course, but it really makes things easier on the eyes.

 

If you want to try it out, add this to your browser, then create a new script, paste this:

Quote

// ==UserScript==
// @id             noWhiteBackgroundColor-gray
// @name           noWhiteBackgroundColor-gray
// @version        2.0
// @namespace
// @author         HowardSmith
// @description    Version 2: Generic version which can now be configured to any background colour you like:
// @include        *
// @exclude
// @run-at         document-start
// ==/UserScript==
(function () {
    function noWhiteBackgroundColor() {

        function changeBackgroundColor(x)  {  // auto change colors too close to white
            var backgroundColorRGB=window.getComputedStyle(x,null).backgroundColor;  // get background-color
            if(backgroundColorRGB!="transparent")  {  // convert hex color to rgb color to compare
                var RGBValuesArray = backgroundColorRGB.match(/\d+/g); //get rgb values
                var red   = RGBValuesArray[0];
                var green = RGBValuesArray[1];
                var blue  = RGBValuesArray[2];

                // ============================================================================
                // Set the base colors you require:
                // use: http://www.colorpicker.com
                // to find the rgb values of the base colour you wish to suppress white backgrounds with:
                // Default gray provided:
                // ============================================================================

                var red_needed   = 220;
                var green_needed = 220;
                var blue_needed  = 220;


                if (red>=220&&green>=220&&blue>=220) {   // white range detection

                   if      (red>=250&&red<=255&&green>=250&&green<=255&&blue>=250&&blue<=255) {
                      red_needed   += 0;
                      green_needed += 0; }

                   else if (red>=240&&red<=255&&green>=240&&green<=255&&blue>=240&&blue<=255) {
                      red_needed   += 6;
                      green_needed += 3; }

                   else if (red>=230&&red<=255&&green>=230&&green<=255&&blue>=230&&blue<=255) {
                      red_needed   += 10;
                      green_needed += 5; }

                   else if (red>=220&&red<=255&&green>=220&&green<=255&&blue>=220&&blue<=255) {
                      red_needed   += 14;
                      green_needed += 7; }

                   x.style.backgroundColor="rgb( " +red_needed+ ", " +green_needed+ ", " +blue_needed+ ")"; // the background-color you want
                   }
                }
            }
        var allElements=document.getElementsByTagName("*");  // get all elements on a page
        for(var i=0; i<allElements.length; i++)  {
            changeBackgroundColor(allElements[i]);}
    }
    window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",noWhiteBackgroundColor, false);
})() ;

 

 

Then you just save the script and refresh your browser windows. This will turn the white backgrounds into grey ones. It's still quite easy to read black text and I haven't had any problems with it so far; also, you can change the RGB colors to make it clearer or darker if you want to. It's a bit of a hack, but it's made my browsing way easier on the last few months.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Juju (see edit history)

[pro1ton]

Hi all,
So after seeing this video, I realized how much I have a thirst for a radial menu, and I went on a hunt to find a radial menu that is compatible with windows 10. So I'll get right to the point. I found 2 applications. The first one was very basic and lacked key features but I'll leave a link to it at the bottom of this post. However, the 2nd application that I found which is called Radial Menu...actually the first one is called Radial Menu as well... uh anyway it had every feature that I needed, and ever since I've downloaded the application, I use it daily and it has significantly increased my workflow speed.

So this is my current desktop:

I use fences to sort my applications, and when I hover over the label, it opens the container and I can select what I want. And this is a picture of the radial menu:

It's really amazing because I can simply choose any application I want with a quick flick. I set the trigger to mouse4 hold and it's simply amazing.

It has lots of customizability options such as different shapes and colors, sub-menus, ability to show other menus based on different applications, etc.

Anyway, I felt this is a very useful application and I wanted to share it with you guys. So if you like radial menus give this a try in my opinion it's worth it.

p.s. I didn't find it interfering with me playing video games which is even nicer. (I didn't put it to test though)

1st application: http://www.jacobiedema.nl/RadialMenu/

2nd application(recommended): http://radialmenu.weebly.com/

[pro1ton]

Also, this might interest some people.
So I have a pretty neat setup to toggle dark mode on my PC.

So this is how my PC normally looks like:

And this is how it looks like with dark mode toggled on:

So, the best bits about this setup is that it is quickly toggled with 1 button press and it also makes every website dark.

So I use this auto-hotkey script to toggle the dark mode on windows 10 with a quick shortcut :

+F2::  ToggleWindowsDefaultAppMode()
ToggleWindowsDefaultAppMode() {
    RegRead, appMode, HKCU, Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Themes\Personalize, AppsUseLightTheme
    RegWrite, REG_DWORD, HKCU, Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Themes\Personalize, AppsUseLightTheme, % !appMode
}

I set the toggle button to Shift+F2 but it can be changed to anything. And I use an add-on for Firefox called Dark Reader and when the dark mode on windows is toggled, it also signals this add-on to toggle as well which is very neat. This is the setting that you need to toggle in order for this functionality to work:

Hope this will be of use to someone.

[pro1ton]

Also I stumbled upon this app which is a solid replacement for a "custom shell". The important thing is that it works for windows 10 and is packed with features.

So if you're not a fan of radial menus, this is the go-to option.

 

Link: https://www.quickaccesspopup.com/

 

[BTGBullseye]

12 hours ago, Juju said:

Just wanted to add a little something here. I found it surprising when you mentioned you didn't like dark themes because you're bound to run into something white when browsing the Internet and that's always unpleasant. I've been using dark themes everywhere for a few years now, and recently I ran into this same problem. I found an interesting solution, however.

 

There's an extension (for Firefox and Chrome, as far as I know) called TamperMonkey that can run simple scripts to change your browsing experience. With this, you can add custom code on a script to change the background on most sites. It doesn't work on all sites, of course, but it really makes things easier on the eyes.

 

If you want to try it out, add this to your browser, then create a new script, paste this:

 

Then you just save the script and refresh your browser windows. This will turn the white backgrounds into grey ones. It's still quite easy to read black text and I haven't had any problems with it so far; also, you can change the RGB colors to make it clearer or darker if you want to. It's a bit of a hack, but it's made my browsing way easier on the last few months.

 

There's also the "Dark Night Mode" addon for Chrome that works for any page you want it to.

[Ross Scott]

 

13 hours ago, Juju said:

Just wanted to add a little something here. I found it surprising when you mentioned you didn't like dark themes because you're bound to run into something white when browsing the Internet and that's always unpleasant. I've been using dark themes everywhere for a few years now, and recently I ran into this same problem. I found an interesting solution, however.

Yeah I actually tried a plugin like that in the past and the results were fairly hideous and it still let some white through, but it's been a while since I've used it also.  I can see the potential for a dark theme if you really can clamp down on all colors above a certain brightness level, ideally it's something I should have tested out more, but I only had so much time.

12 hours ago, pro1ton said:

Hi all,
So after seeing this video, I realized how much I have a thirst for a radial menu, and I went on a hunt to find a radial menu that is compatible with windows 10.

Thanks, I'll try to add these as an option, maybe mention them in the followup video.  For me it's not the radial menu I want exactly so much as rapid access.  I've actually used some radial menus in games and applications before that I HATE (they'll track the mouse movement in a non-intuitive way, where you have to move the mouse left or right like a dial and up and down don't behave the way you think they would.  I imagine ones designed for the OS are more intuitive though.  That's great hearing that it's increased your workflow speed, that's what this is all about! (well, that and things looking nice)

 

 

8 hours ago, pro1ton said:

Also I stumbled upon this app which is a solid replacement for a "custom shell". The important thing is that it works for windows 10 and is packed with features.

 

Right on, though I doubt it's a replacement for the whole shell, but rather the start menu, although that's something I was having trouble finding a replacement for that which could be launched anywhere, so thanks a bunch!

[Edward]

Oh, btw. I just remembered something else from your video. You said something about the clipboard dying at times. I too have experienced this many times and not only on Windows. Granted, the most I have experienced this has been on Windows XP, but most notably this has happened after a game or some other software like an editor to a game. I can't remember exactly which one(s) but it has happened that I play around with something and either after a crash or extended usage suddenly I can't copy any text. I do know that it has also happened on Linux but very, very, very, very seldom. That time I must've played some game or editor under wine that ended up being a system-wide clipboard killer (even the middle-click-clipboard).

 

 

On another note, if you don't like moving your hand off your mouse for a keyboard shortcut, maybe find a 7+ button mouse and map button and manipulation key combinations (shift, ctrl, alt, win, menu) so that most keycombos can be done from the mouse. No need to stretch for the Function keys or right of H.

[RobotHunter]

Hey guys, I've been a fan of Accursed Farms for a few years now but have just now joined the site. 

Watching the GUI video, I got to the section on Linux, and really liked one specific GUI, even though Ross used it as an example of something too dark. Does anyone know how I can reproduce this in Ubuntu? I think it looks slick as hell.

The text is in Spanish so I don't think this is Ross' personal computer, but any help in replicating this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[POINTS:]

It took me a while to figure out how Ross was doing the "no close button" on Firefox Tabs. I thought I'd post the steps to do it in case anyone else was interested.

 

I found that you have to enable the option toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets in about:config. Then, create the chrome folder in your Firefox profile folder, create "userChrome.css" in that folder with this content:

@namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul"); /* only needed once */

#tabbrowser-tabs .tabbrowser-tab .tab-close-button { display:none!important; }

 

[Moo]

I also removed my tab close buttons after the video, and the new tab button (which was much easier to do), but now when I have ~8 or so tabs open, firefox doesn't react to middle-clicks in the little space that's left. I've tried putting a "flexible space" there from the customise menu, but that doesn't let me open new tabs by middle-clicking it either.

 

Any ideas to fix this would be appreciated, I'm just using Ctrl + t to open new tabs past 8 in the meantime.

[Isaiah]

On 6/22/2020 at 10:41 AM, Ross Scott said:

That explains HALF of the not-a-contradiction-that-you-think-is-a-contradiction part.

No. I reread our previous comments and realized I did a very bad job at explaining the exact contradictions I was seeing and this created confusion and frustration for both of us. So let me try to explain in more detail some of these.

 

You claimed my Start Menu suggestion was inefficient compared to your context menu method because:

 

1. I have to travel down to the bottom left of the screen each time

 

This claim directly contradicts your own video where you actually demonstrated just how fast and reliable moving your cursor to the bottom corner of the screen is. You also already move your cursor there all the time for common shortcuts and even admitted that you move your cursor to the dock to open the context menu when there is no exposed desktop anyway. Making this complaint even less valid.

 

2. I have to click twice as opposed to once

 

Not if everything is in the main folder and I don't see how an extra click is less efficient but that's more a personal issue/preference in any case.

 

3. Even when clicking once, I have a higher travel time to the folder in ADDITION to the travel time to the start menu

 

Again, the extra travel time complaint contradicts everything I pointed out with claim #1 above. You can also use the scroll wheel to rapidly scroll through the start menu without moving the mouse and I'm not sure you can even do that with your own context menu method.

 

4. I can't fit as many programs in the same amount of space

 

This directly contradicts your claim in the video about small elements being inefficient. You can't have it both ways because making elements bigger so they're easier to click will naturally make them take up more space and require more "travel time", but it also means you can move through them faster since it requires less accuracy, which I thought was the whole point?

 

I also pointed out that Fitts's Law demonstrates that big+far (start menu) is about as efficient as small+near (context menu). So they kind of cancel each other out and makes the extra travel complaint irrelevant anyway. And the Start Menu being located in the corner of the screen gives it an advantage over your context menu and better aligns with your very own "runway" concept that you think everything should follow. Which is another kind of contradiction.

Now I totally failed to properly explain all this in my previous comments and gave you the impression I was claiming the contradiction was solely between travel distance to small targets and travel distance of mouse gestures. But the mouse gestures point was really just meant as an additional example of why claiming more "travel time" equals less efficiency contradict with your own efficiency solutions. But you did make a very good point about gestures not being directly comparable because they require less accuracy. So I'll give you that.

 

However, even if we exude gestures altogether here that doesn't actually invalidate the contractions pointed out above because it's not even related  to them. And this is also why I said your explanation about mouse gestures and transcending Fitts's law was unrelated to my actual issues. My issues here are also not just related to contradictory complaints but also ones that just don't make any sense.

 

For example, even though you admitted you "forgot" about the ability to hide desktop shortcuts, you made some bizarre complaints about it in the process.

On 6/17/2020 at 5:27 AM, Ross Scott said:

I'm a moron for forgetting about that, my bad.  Still increases the travel time and involves tiny targets (even smaller than the popup menu I have in Litestep), but you're right, it exists.

Increases travel distance compared to what? It's a context menu so you just right-click anywhere on the desktop and "boom, boom, boom" there the menu is! This complaint is not only contradictory to the start menu complaints but also nonsensical. And on top of all this, you only have to toggle this option ONCE when you install Windows and never touch it it again. Making all these complaints just silly.

 

Now I'm sure you will dispute all these points and that's fine. I'm really not trying to convenience you here that my criticisms are valid because I realize now that's a waste of time. I really just wanted to try and better explain why I feel this way since you seem to think I'm just making up accusations.

 

Regarding the alt+tab example

 

On 6/22/2020 at 10:41 AM, Ross Scott said:

-I think what I didn't state overtly is I'm assuming you SELECT the appropriate program you want.  So if you have 12 programs open, you're not JUST trying to get their names, you ALSO  want to SELECT the program you want.

Already explained that alt+tab shows names and big thumbnails. So it's an objectively faster way to both identify and select tasks visually over just text and small meaninglessly icons.

 

On 6/22/2020 at 10:41 AM, Ross Scott said:

Now just so you don't think I'm contradicting later, I WOULD want the screen flooded with info like this if I was browsing through a LOT of files, like hundreds.  But for open tasks, it's slightly faster to have the visuals a little more concentrated. 

Nope. I find this to be just another contradiction - flooding screen with more info about tasks overwhelming and bad, but flooding screen with more info about many, many more files even better? Okay.

 

On 6/22/2020 at 10:41 AM, Ross Scott said:

Anyway, I hope that settles why I don't think I made a contradiction on this and I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

I still see many contradictions here and disagree with most of your proposed "inefficiencies". At least from an objective standpoint. However, I know none of this is intentional and by "efficiency" I think you really mean just doing things the way you like. Which is totally fine but I wish I had realized this before trying to help because it would have saved us both a lot of wasted energy and frustration.

[Edward]

Ah, missed that. 50 various click combinations... AND the manipulation keys! He could type with that. ;D

[Ross Scott]

Isaiah: More text hiding so as not to spam the chat:

 

Spoiler

 

7 hours ago, Isaiah said:

This claim directly contradicts your own video where you actually demonstrated just how fast and reliable moving your cursor to the bottom corner of the screen is. You also already move your cursor there all the time for common shortcuts and even admitted that you move your cursor to the dock to open the context menu when there is no exposed desktop anyway. Making this complaint even less valid.

You're comparing apples to oranges.  I was claiming my corner option was faster than Windows default methods of launching a program, not the best end-all method.  Look at it this way:

 

Worst:

navigating to a tiny target and clicking on it (shortcut default)

Better:

navigating to an easier to hit target and clicking on it (my current Litestep method)

Best:

Launching what you want immediately from wherever you are on the screen (simple mouse gesture / button combo / whatever's fastest)

 

This isn't a contradiction, because while it's better than Windows default, it's NOT as good as it could be.  If I say building a house of wood is great compared to straw, but then say it sucks compared to brick, I'm not contradicting myself.  However I AM saying it both sucks and is great, depending on the context.  If you have no context, it looks like a contradiction.

 

You keep saying contractions, it reminds me of a famous fable about this how a satyr saw a man blowing on his hands in the cold and asked why he was doing that, he said "to warm them up"  Later, the satyr saw him blowing on his soup and asked why "to cool it off."  The satyr was amazed and couldn't comprehend this.

 

Quote

 

2. I have to click twice as opposed to once

 

Not if everything is in the main folder and I don't see how an extra click is less efficient but that's more a personal issue/preference in any case.

You lost me what this is in reference to, but I'd say it all depends on total time / effort.  For some situations 2 clicks can be more efficient than 1, it depends on the situation.

 

Quote

 

3. Even when clicking once, I have a higher travel time to the folder in ADDITION to the travel time to the start menu

 

Again, the extra travel time complaint contradicts everything I pointed out with claim #1 above. You can also use the scroll wheel to rapidly scroll through the start menu without moving the mouse and I'm not sure you can even do that with your own context menu method.

Again, it's only a contradiction with no context.  It's about total speed, effort, and concentration.  We want whatever is the minimum.  If I can just click anywhere and bring up the menu, then navigate to my target, that's faster than going to the bottom left, clicking a button, THEN navigating to my target.  In case I'm not being clear:

Clicking a button = faster than navigating to the corner of the screen

 

As for the scroll wheel, I personally find that awful and imprecise and takes more effort on my part.  If I need to scroll to something 10 clicks away, I need maximum speed with the wheel to hit it in the minimum amount of time, but then I'll probably overshoot, which means I need to back up again.  If someone is very skilled, they could bring the time down, but I find the effort / concentration level required for this to be poor.

Quote

 

4. I can't fit as many programs in the same amount of space

 

This directly contradicts your claim in the video about small elements being inefficient. You can't have it both ways because making elements bigger so they're easier to click will naturally make them take up more space and require more "travel time", but it also means you can move through them faster since it requires less accuracy, which I thought was the whole point?

If that's what I said, I made a mistake with my wording, my bad.  Taken literally, you are correct.  If we're talking about the Start menu v. Litestep menu (if we're not, you lost me again, sorry), what I SHOULD have said was "I have less programs visible and it takes more time / effort to see them all".  Again, doesn't m

 

Compare the methods:

 

1. Using the Start menu via the GUI:

-I move to the bottom left, click on the Start menu, I navigate to my programs, but I'm only shown a small handful of them.  If my program isn't there, I have to keep scrolling and scrolling to get to the one I want.  That means it's kind of a "hidden" travel distance, even though it takes up less of the screen. This also takes time and concentration, not good.

-It DOES have a full screen option, which is good, but then I have to do an ADDITIONAL click (with more travel time) to list all programs, and even then, it doesn't use the full width of the screen).  So some good ideas there, but poor execution

 

2. Using Litestep popup menu:

-I click anywhere I want, then bring up a menu, which can be scaled to any size I choose (the one in the video is leftovers from me making this years ago). 

-I move the mouse to the menu I want.  I still have travel distance, which as you correctly pointed out, scales with how large I want the targets but I see more of the programs available BECAUSE my method will utilize the full verticality of the screen.  The default Windows method does NOT do this.  this is what I meant to say earlier, but worded poorly.  If it's only using 80% of the vertical screen, that's 20% less programs I get see REGARDLESS of what size the user chooses for them.  Now before you say "contradiction", yes, that DOES mean more travel time, however that means LESS effort (and maybe less total travel time), then having to manually scroll through everything.  So it APPEARS to have more travel time, but when you factor in I have less times I need to scroll, it can come out ahead over the Windows default.

 

3. Theoretical better method:

-I press a button anywhere to bring up the start menu. 

-It's arranged in a way that makes sense, maybe cascading menus in broader sections around the cursor, depending on how close to the edge it was launched?  It can be scaled and show as many programs at whatever size you want before scrolling is required and scrolling could be as simple as just moving the mouse.  It could also utilize the full screen vertically AND horizontally and always be arranged in such a way as to minimize your travel time depending on where your cursor is.

 

 

Quote

Increases travel distance compared to what? It's a context menu so you just right-click anywhere on the desktop and "boom, boom, boom" there the menu is! This complaint is not only contradictory to the start menu complaints but also nonsensical. And on top of all this, you only have to toggle this option ONCE when you install Windows and never touch it it again. Making all these complaints just silly.

I think we had a total communication meltdown here.  Here's what I meant, tell me if this doesn't make sense:

 

-I was not referring to the PROCEDURE for turning off desktop icons.  Assume anything you have to do ONCE on your OS and ONLY ONCE is irrelevant as far as this conversation goes.  If I can do something once, then not do it again for 5 years, it just doesn't even count to me as far as efficiency goes.  I'm looking at day-to-day frequent + infrequent tasks for a variety of situations.  If this is what I was referring to, then you'd be right, I would be acting ridiculous.

 

-I was referring for how to rapidly access desktop shortcuts AFTER turning them off.  I checked on Windows 7, maybe it's faster on 10:

 

Win 7 default:

-You have to click on a TINY icon by the system tray in order to bring up an also-small menu to select (even smaller than my Litestep menu).  These are tiny targets all-around, it's awful.

 

Litestep default:

-Click anywhere you want to bring up a menu of whatever size you want to display all desktops.  Now it ONLY shows them vertically, which is a shortcoming, but that's a lot better than the Windows 7 default of accessing your shortcuts when you have the shortcuts removed from the visible area.

 

 

Quote

 

Now I'm sure you will dispute all these points and that's fine. I'm really not trying to convenience you here that my criticisms are valid because I realize now that's a waste of time. I really just wanted to try and better explain why I feel this way since you seem to think I'm just making up accusations.

Well you don't have to agree with me either, but it seems clear to me you were missing my logic on some of these points.

 

Quote

 

Nope. I find this to be just another contradiction - flooding screen with more info about tasks overwhelming and bad, but flooding screen with more info about many, many more files even better? Okay.

This part is more subjective, but I'll explain the reasoning:  I rarely have more than a dozen active programs going at a time, maybe 20 max, sometimes only 2-5.  I'm expecting a smaller number, so I want to hone in on what is the relevant one more rapidly.

 

Contrast that with file browsing, where I could be browsing through THOUSANDS of files.  I simply have way more information to flow through in that scenario, so I don't always have expectations of being able to do it rapidly, in which case, I may want more information on the screen total to process as much as I can.  I actually have some ideas on this for the followup, which I hope to show.

 

 

 

The bottom line, which may explain many of the perceived contradictions I have is that the GUI is not a one-size-fits all situation.  An operation that's efficient for one task may be awful for another.  Again, it all comes down to time and effort, wanting to minimize both of those across a variety of situations.  Also, this is actually helpful for the followup, I can explain the general logic in the followup video which should help clear up confusion for anyone else who thought I wasn't making sense.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Ross Scott (see edit history)

[POINTS:]

On 6/13/2020 at 11:56 PM, emscape said:

Also, I like the multiple desktop configurations idea macOs and Linux have been implementing, but with one major addition to make it work. You'll have multiple desktops with different program subsets for different kinds of workload.

That sounds like you are describing Activities in KDE Plasma. From what I understand, they are similar to desktops but you can have a separate wallpaper, widgets and programs in the dock. (I use Activities but never really tried out Desktops.)

 

For example, I have my usual desktop with Firefox, Thunderbird, etc., and then a separate Activity for downloading and editing YouTube videos. In the Video editing Activity, I have Avidemux on my Dock, Dolphin (a file explorer) open to Videos, and Terminal open ready to run a script to modify the date on the Videos. All that is ready at push of a hotkey but completely out of my Desktop when not using it.