New GNOME Human Interface Guidelines now official – and obviously some people hate it
- Reference: 1628516127
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/08/09/gnome_human_interface_guidelines/
- Source link:
The GNOME HIG, as Day [1]explained back in May, was "fairly out of date" both in terms of technical changes for GNOME 40 and GTK (GNOME Toolkit) 4 and also what he called "contemporary design practice."
GTK 4.x was released in December 2020, and GNOME 40 in March this year, though many Linux distributions are still using GNOME 3.38. Day [2]noted on Twitter that "the new GNOME HIG is now official. There's more work to be done, but I'm pretty pleased with it overall."
A key change is that the design patterns all reference GTK widgets that can be used to implement the pattern, something Day described as an "effort to bring the HIG closer to the platform." There are more specialist widgets than before, again making it easier to implement the patterns, such as widgets for preferences windows. The new guidelines also cover tooltips, which were omitted before. Accessibility is no longer the subject of a separate guide, but is now part of the standard guidelines, "as it should be," said Day.
In 2019, Day spoke at the GUADEC event, GNOME's main annual conference, about the user experience (UX) strategy for the project. He conducted in-depth interviews with three groups of users about their choice of desktop, not limiting himself to GNOME users. "People's expectations have been raised: they are less inclined to accept poor quality software than they were in the past," he said in a [3]series of posts based on the presentation. He highlighted the importance of polish and refinement, integration with cloud, and the relationship between developers and designers.
[4]
Despite the effort that has gone into GNOME 40 and the new HIG, the updates to GNOME are contentious. "I really like the GNOME 3.38 design… However, the GNOME 40 looks like the unproductive thing that gives you pain," [5]said one user , while another called the [6]HIG "Insanity specified… How else would you come up with a filechooser no one can use, or an OK-Button of a dialog in the window title bar." However, another [7]said : "I think Gnome's Interface Guidelines are very well done… Daily use is nice and doesn't get in the way while using software. People coming from other OS get used to it quite easily."
[8]
[9]
The [10]guidelines state that "primary menus are typically placed at the end (in Western locales on the right) of the header bar," and that "secondary menus are located in the header bar, and are used to contain actions and settings for a particular view or content item." The positioning of menus in the window's header bar has proved fiddly and counterintuitive for some.
An operating system in development, [11]helloSystem , was inspired by early design guidelines for the Mac, including global menus as [12]advocated by usability expert Bruce Tognazzini, formerly of Apple.
[13]
Inconsistency: GNOME Web (rear) has menus in the header bar, Firefox (front) does not
Few would argue against the idea that consistency of design and appearance helps users to navigate an operating system and its applications, so the guidelines are important. There is another issue, though, which is that many Linux applications are cross-platform and their developers have a difficult decision: is it better for their application to look and feel the same on all platforms, or to adopt the conventions of the operating system as far as possible? In practice there is a bit of both. Neither Firefox nor LibreOffice have menus in the header bar, to take two examples that are among the most popular Linux applications.
[14]Linux Mint 20.2 is a bit more insistent about updating but not as annoying as Windows or Mac, team promises
[15]System76 releases Ubuntu-based Pop!_OS 21.04 with auto-tiling COSMIC desktop
[16]Feeling brave? GNOME 40 is here and you can have a poke around in the Fedora 34 beta
[17]KDE maintainers speak on why it is worth looking beyond GNOME
In a recent post on "apps getting worse", XML co-inventor Tim Bray [18]noted that "any time you make any change to a popular product, you've imposed a retraining cost on its users." This means that any change will be resisted by some because it introduces new friction. Bray also said: "No PM [Product Manager] in history has ever said 'This seems to be working pretty well, let's leave it the way it is.' Because that's not bold. That's not visionary. That doesn't get you promoted." Although GNOME as an open-source project is not subject to these same constraints, there is still pressure to make bold improvements that may not always go down well with users. Microsoft has revamped the Start menu in the [19]forthcoming Windows 11 and will no doubt face complaints from users now familiar with the Windows 10 Start menu, which itself was a reaction to complaints about Windows 8, which radically changed the popular Windows 7 Start menu.
One complaint about the new GNOME guidelines is that they embrace the idea of hiding less-used options and features for the sake of a simpler experience, saying "don't overwhelm people with too many elements at once. Use progressive disclosure and navigation structures to provide a guided experience." The downside is loss of discoverability, and the fact that some actions take more clicks or keypresses to accomplish, leading to [20]complaints that the UI is designed to "make everything take as many clicks as possible."
[21]
The HIG for GNOME 3.38 said [22]almost the same thing : "Use progressive disclosure to show controls when they are needed... showing every possible control all the time makes an application harder to use, since users have to navigate controls that are often not relevant. Instead, only show controls when they are needed." Right or wrong, that design principle is not exclusive to the GNOME 40 wave of changes. ®
Get our [23]Tech Resources
[1] https://blogs.gnome.org/aday/2021/05/20/new-human-interface-guidelines/
[2] https://twitter.com/allanday/status/1423664545982210049
[3] https://blogs.gnome.org/aday/2019/09/04/towards-a-ux-strategy-for-gnome-part-1/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YRFRE-r5uDxoUdGZJPYZ2gAAAFc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://discourse.gnome.org/t/gnome-40-return-gnome-3-38-styles/6412
[6] https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/1271930-gnome-s-new-human-interface-guidelines-now-official?p=1271948#post1271948
[7] https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/1271930-gnome-s-new-human-interface-guidelines-now-official?p=1272114#post1272114
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YRFRE-r5uDxoUdGZJPYZ2gAAAFc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YRFRE-r5uDxoUdGZJPYZ2gAAAFc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://developer.gnome.org/hig/patterns/controls/menus.html
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/16/hellosystem_maclike_freebsd_project_05/
[12] https://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/
[13] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/08/09/menus.jpg
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/12/linux_mint_202/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/30/pop_os_2104/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/25/gnome_40/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/16/kde_maintainers_speak_on_why/
[18] https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2021/08/07/Apps-Get-Worse
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/19/microsoft_windows_11_hands_on/
[20] https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/1271930-gnome-s-new-human-interface-guidelines-now-official?p=1271939#post1271939
[21] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YRFRE-r5uDxoUdGZJPYZ2gAAAFc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[22] https://developer-old.gnome.org/hig/3.38/design-principles.html.en
[23] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Who cares?
Which is why I use Mate - aka gnome 2.
don't overwhelm people with too many elements at once
Isn't that just what a menu descending from the menu bar *does* ? Operational groups as individual menus, commonly used options on the drop-downs, less commonly used or more complex options on sub-menus?
Or is that a bit to grandpa for the current generation of UI designers?
Re: don't overwhelm people with too many elements at once
Yeah, absolutely. Gotta have a touchscreen paradigm. Those big-screen workstation folks who aren't prepared to stick a rubber glove on their selfie stick are just sooo last century.
Mind you, that giant touchscreen in the Death-by-PowerPoint Mortuary is great for discussing the best walk to Starbucks; surely the killer app for GNOME.
My apps don't have menubars at all; they make you learn the shortcut keys.
I do give users a handy list of bindings. But I don't tell you it's C-h b to open it. I will sell you a print out reference card, and actually that's how I make most of my sales.
Bug: "deactivate laser" and "destroy planet" buttons adjacent | WONTFIX
> The guidelines state that "primary menus are typically placed at the end (in Western locales on the right) of the header bar,"
Marvellous! As if it weren't bad enough on other DEs, with "minimize" and "maximize" right next to the "close" button, now if you want to do *anything* in the app, your cursor is going dangerously near the close button every time!
Re: Bug: "deactivate laser" and "destroy planet" buttons adjacent | WONTFIX
" your cursor is going dangerously near the close button every time!"
Mind you, with most apps these days given names like "Drivell" and iCrap" (yes, we know that. Please do it in the woods), and taking up all your bandwidth telling everybody else what you just did (shame they don't bother to tell you), that is probably just as well.
We had global menus way back
Like, decades ago with KDE 3.
The past was soo much better.
Who makes this crap up?
“ … showing every possible control all the time makes an application harder to use….”
No it doesn’t!!! Forcing the user to dig about in dialogues hiding behind “advanced” buttons and buggering about with what people are familiar with and pissing about moving stuff and following MS (because they’ve never f&£@ed up their UI, have they?) is what makes stuff harder to use.
The way these design philosophies are put out there and followed as if they were actually correct its unbelievable. Just leave the shit alone (after putting everything back to how it was 20 years ago before you started messing it up).
Have they ever wondered what the title bar is for?
It's for clicking so you can drag the window around the screen, as well as displaying the application name (which many applications no longer bother doing anyway). Look at the example in the screenshot - on the current version approx 80% of the title bar is available for you to click in order to drag the window. On the "contemporary design practice" version it's about 10%. Usability takes yet another step backwards because of the fashionistas.
Re: Have they ever wondered what the title bar is for?
"...on the current version approx 80% of the title bar is available for you to click in order to drag the window...."
Until it fills up with tabs. Then about the width of a button is available.
"they are less inclined to accept poor quality software than they were in the past"
Really? I just see poor quality software around. Web apps with clunky UIs that makes everything harder to do. Desktop apps written with "portable frameworks" delivering ugly widgets, despite needing half a gigabyte of "runtime". Overly simplified widgets designed for touch interactions that require more mouse clicks than ever. Removal of menus replaced by labels scattered around you have to find if they are clickable or not trying. Lists that no longer respond to typing by searching but require a separate search box. Settings pages without Save/OK and Cancel buttons to accept changes or not. Development tools became worse as well at designing UIs, since they believed HTML was a model to imitate, and not a document display language badly used to try to deliver something resembling a UI.
Actually people were forced to accept lower quality software, with less features, and slower, by web applications that still can't cope with the needs of complex applications so they need to simplify UI and force user to accept them - rebranding desktop app to the "Classic" line...
Well, not helping their case. The reason I use KDE over GNOME is having the menu in the with the window bar.
They do NOT belong together.
Choice, anybody?
Could we have two ways an app presents itself: one with all items in the menu for the big screen, and one with progressively-filled menus for the small screen.
I know, added complexity, but why disappoint everyone with an in-between paradigm?
hate it
The project I work for uses the title bar in a minimalist way, for moving around. However we use text in it to tell the user not only what the program is, but also exactly what context and level it is working at.
Gnome-Human interface?
I wondered what new (Gnu!) type of porn ElReg had dreamed up, only to find out it's a story about user interfaces. Darn... =-Jp
More upgrades to avoid!!
Gnome 2 -> Gnome 3..........surely a huge retrograde step!
*
Gnome 3 -> Gnome 4..........why should I care?
*
I've hated Gnome 3 since it was launched. Sure....visually slick.....but lots of added mouse clicks to get anything done!!
*
Gnome 4.......just say "No"!!
*
XFCE4 is perfect!!! .... doesn't get in the way, lightweight.....what's not to like?
CUA FTW.
Title bars tell you about the window they are on top of. They ARE NOT PART OF THE WINDOW! That's why their primary functional job it to allow you to manage the window - move it, minimise it, close it. If the app wants some menus, then put in a menu bar, like a sane person.
This is why server-side decorations are The Right Way.
However, the New Geniuses have determined that an app with a lousy UI design must be allowed to be lousy all over your desktop, because the app writer is such a genius.
I haven't really enjoyed desktop environments since KDE 3.5 and Gnome 2 and simply don't use them any more mainly because the alternatives are too inefficient (poor usability, poor use of hardware resources).
I think the problem is that there is no "innate knowledge" on what good usability is. When it comes to UI, there is no such thing as "modern" either.
- You have those that have only used Windows. So go for the Windows 95 style
- You have those that are in love with macOS and want yet another Apple theme
- You have the tablet weirdos because they think it is "modern"
- You have the simple gang that believe every UI should be for 90 year olds or 3 year olds
And yet the *only* usability study ever carried out on open-source desktops was from Sun Microsystems and the JDS Environment (Basically a Gnome 2 fork) carried out in 2001. (I think this is it but much of it is bitrotted https://people.gnome.org/~calum/usability/ut1_report/participant_mix.html)
Can we not just provide a massive survey for the world to complete and then just go for the most common request? I am happy to change my habits a little if it is worth it. At the moment Gnome 3+ is just too bizarre and niche.
Who cares?
Gnome died with version 3, there is no need to kill it yet again.