Back

@aral What we've found across a number of research exercises over the years is that:

- Basically nobody uses the app menu, either as a menu or as a focus indicator
- New people are often confused by the app menu, thinking that it's a taskbar/app switcher
- The app menu makes it harder for people to find Activities, because it's right next to it and visually more prominent

Try it for a few days, most people very quickly forget the app menu ever existed :)

@tbernard I understand you’ve done some studies but can you please answer my question: How can you tell which app you’re in by looking at the screen in GNOME?

You see how that’s a fundamental landmark that’s currently missing, right?

@aral I opened the apps, why would I be confused about what app I'm in?

If this was a fundamental landmark people would be using it as such, which is not what we've found in practice...

@tbernard Because you opened them this morning and now you’re back from lunch. Because the three browsers and two editors you use all look almost identical. For the same reason that when you switch to an app, the accessibility system speaks its name. Because having the person using your system know where they are at all times (“you are here”) is such a cornerstone of interaction design that I’m surprised I actually have to make the case for it.

@aral @tbernard I found that if there's a way to hit a shortcut, or a button, that tells me where I am, is perfect. Seeing it all the time isn't very useful, in my experience. Seeing it as needed, is.

There are quite a few things I use daily that work similarly: when reading an ebook, I see the contents. If I want to know where I am in the book, I touch the top of my reader, and it will display that information: the book name, chapter, and page number. I don't need to, nor want to, see it all the time. But it's there if I need it.

Similarly, I don't need to know what app I'm in all the time. If I just launched in, chances are, I know. If I just came back from lunch, I'll ask the system to show me where I am.

As long as there's an easy, straightforward way to ask the system to tell me where I am, that's perfect. While I'm using an app, I prefer to see only what is required and useful for using the app, and once I'm in it, and working with it, its name isn't.

(I do hope there'll be a way to ask the system where one is, though, because that is, indeed, important.)

@algernon @tbernard By the same token, let’s hide all controls until you press a keyboard shortcut to make them visible. We could call this new approach Mystery Meat Navigation.

@aral @tbernard I actually do just that in most of my applications, yes. It's my "zen mode". It has been working remarkably well for the past decade or so. (See screenshots)

Yes, this is a bit on the extreme end, and I definitely wouldn't recommend it for everyone, and it doesn't fit all use-cases. It's also a good few steps further than not showing the window title, but the workspace instead.

Let me give you a comparison!

Lets say I have three workspaces: one for work, one for family, one for personal stuff. I have a terminal open on each of them.

Without further configuration, each of those terminals will have the same name: "Terminal", or "XTerm", or something like that. Unless I configure my shell to tell the terminal to set the title, they'll all have the same name. If I happen to run something else than a shell in a terminal window, it becomes even more complicated.

With the window title, looking at it, I will have no idea just from the name alone, where I am. "XTerm" isn't very useful. I have a handful of them. I'd have to look at the contents or the workspace to figure out the general area.

On the other hand, seeing the workspace, I will immediately know the general area, and can narrow it down from there: I'm in the "work" workspace, and this looks like a terminal. Done. Pretty much a single glance at the top of screen, and the window title doesn't play a part at all.

For browsers, same thing: I may have a browser for work, another for personal stuff. I might have GitHub open for work. With window titles, I'll have to read the title to figure out what the browser is for. With the workspace shown, I'll see it's a browser (same way I see it's a browser if its the window title), I'll see the workspace, and I know the context. No need to read the title.

Workspaces give you context, window titles usually do not. I like context, because I often have multiple instances of the same app open, for different purposes. Trying to encode that into the window title would be a pain in the backside, especially when workspaces already give me the context I need, and they allow figuring out what the stuff in screen is for. Not just the current app, but everything else on the same workspace.

The downside is that this assumes that workspaces are kept in order. But if they aren't, then the window title won't help much anyway, either: it's an XTerm. But which one of the handful?

PS. Here’s the link to the Just Perfection #GNOME extension:

https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/3843/just-perfection/

@aral I think it's a workflow issue, in the GNOME workflow it doesn't make sense to provide app information from the desktop. Only productivity utilities are provided in the top bar right?

All the app icons, app menu, app names, management etc are separate in the overview area.

This helps streamline the workflow i suppose

@simulo @tbernard @verdre@floss.social @fmuellner I’m not talking about knowing which window is active. I’m taking about knowing which app that window belongs to.

@aral @simulo @tbernard @verdre @fmuellner Press super and look at the active app I guess

@carnage_mode Nope, app names are not even presented there, just the icon. Not that that would solve the issue I’m raising anyway.

@simulo @tbernard @verdre@floss.social @fmuellner