Why Window Button Placement Doesn’t Matter
The default positioning of window-management buttons in Ubuntu 10.04 has generated a lot of controversy. But given the decreasing importance of these buttons in modern desktop environments, I’m left wondering if the issue is really so important. In a year or two, after all, window titlebars may be a thing of the past.
As I wrote recently, Lucid Lynx will bring with it a radically refreshed theme. As part of the interface changes, the buttons for minimizing, maximizing and closing windows will be relocated to the left of the window titlebar, from their position on the right where users of most modern operating systems are used to finding them. More specifically, the titlebar will now look something like this by default:
Personally, I’m not crazy about this decision. The position of the buttons will feel “wrong” to most users, Ubuntu veterans and Windows converts alike.
True, wrong and right in this context are defined by convention, not logic. But in the absence of sound reasoning or research proving that the interface changes make for an objectively more functional desktop, I have to remain convinced that the right place for window buttons is on the right, if only because it’s been like that since Windows 3.1 (pace OS X).
Ivanka Majic, one of the designers behind the interface changes in Lucid, recently provided some feedback on the rationale behind the button placement. Unfortunately, she didn’t explain why exactly the decision was made as much as she provided a cool drawing of window titlebars through the ages. I’m still not convinced this was a good idea, Canonical.
Does it matter?
All the same, I’m not sure it really matters where the window buttons live, because they’re becoming less and less important. By many measures, window titlebars are on their way out.
For example, Ubuntu Netbook Remix discards them in favor of a few extra vertical pixels of screen space. For the same reason, applications like Google’s Chromium browser retain only a hybridized version of the title bar, combining it with menu controls.
More notably, when Gnome 3–which is set to accompany Ubuntu 10.10 next fall–hits the masses, it will bring with it a whole new conceptualization of window management in the form of Gnome Shell. (For a look at an early version of Gnome Shell in action, see this post from a few months ago.)
If Gnome Shell catches on, it will make window management buttons almost obsolete, since windows will be managed from a central location. And with the unlimited number of virtual desktops that Gnome Shell provides, minimizing and maximizing windows may no longer be very necessary in the first place–why shrink a window when you can create a new workspace instead?
In order to be truly innovative, Ubuntu’s designers might better have thought in terms of the future of window management, considering how to make Lucid’s new interface consonant with the trend away from titlebars and other pixel-wasting elements of traditional desktops. But at this point, it looks like that innovation will have to wait until Gnome 3 necessitates it next fall.
Uhm… let me quote Shuttleworth:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/110
“Moving everything to the left opens up the space on the right nicely, and I would like to experiment in 10.10 with some innovative options there. It’s much easier to do that if we make this change now”
Sound to me like buttons and titlebars are still going to matter a lot in 6 months. Sound to me like Shuttleworth already has a really good idea of what he wants to see in the title bar in the way of functionality..and I doubt very much it has anything to do with GNOME Shell development since none of the developers who took part in the GNOME designer hackfest have really talked about anything like titlebar functionality.
The question I have is..why is he content with keeping his motivations for the change so close to his chest? Isn’t Ubuntu about transparent decision-making? People are reacting strongly to the change without understanding the motivation only because Shuttleworth doesn’t want to talk over his multi-step the design roadmap.
-jef
Why is GNOME-Shell being mentioned in the same sentence as ubuntu 10.10?
It can’t run on some hardware out the box, it’s not a straight forward solution, it’s painfully lacking in functionality, and it doesn’t change the game, it stupifies it.
Honestly, ubuntu can’t afford to use GNOME -Shell at this stage, and shifting the buttons is making it more obvious that another big, un-wise change is not the way forward.
I used to use Emerald before the whole compiz novelty had worn off. A lot of the themes for Emerald place the buttons on the right rather than the left.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t take long to learn how to use them again. If you use them at all. It’s just not a big issue.
Yes it doesn’t matter where the buttons are placed.
There are tools around to change the configuration.
ubuntu-tweak has just added the feature.
If you don’t like the default installation, just change it.
the point is that the majority of people are used to them where they are now. why make all of us have to reconfigure the desktop to our preferences. why not just make people who want a change opt-in for the new look by reconfiguring it.
it’s not that we don’t want to see change; we just happen to like where they are now and there is NO COMPELLING REASON for moving them yet!
slumbergod:
There is a compelling reason… Shuttleworth is just declining to tell you what that is because he wants it to be an “innovative” surprise for 10.10.
-jef
I think some people at canonical have too much free time on their hands to go about messing up (and annoying all users) the ubu-gnome desktop. Don’t even get me started on the color change.
But isn’t it so much better that we all talk about buttons instead of focusing on what’s really wrong with Ubuntu, and that’s hardware detection, software quality… and so on and on and on.
Since most of our mouse usage is on the middle or left of the screen, does it not make more sense to have the buttons there as well?
How to get the buttons back to the “right” position:
1) [Alt] + [F2]
2) Enter “gconf-editor
3) apps -gt; metacity -gt; general -gt; button_layout
4) change the value from “minimize,maximize,close:” to “:minimize,maximize,close” (the double dot moves to the left)
a 2 seconds task .. nothing special.
I think Lucid is a step up from karmic. The Software Center is back to old goods, the panel design finally works, the Intel issues with full screen streams are solved, the login is much faster ..
The only two things i really don’t like is the fact that pidgin is not working as a system tray icon any more and that i have to deal with that stupid social network stuff .. deinstalling that takes ages.
[…] Why Window Button Placement Doesn’t Matter by The default positioning of window-management buttons in Ubuntu 10.04 has generated a lot of controversy. But given the decreasing importance of these buttons in modern desktop environments, I’m left wondering if the issue is really so important. In a year or two, after all, window titlebars may be a thing of the past. […]
WHO CARES!!!
I can’t believe that there is so much being written about these stupid buttons and themes! It is starting to sound like the pre-vista aero hype.
Lets focus on the nuts and bolts and fix some of the problem with our favorite OP system. Is the sound issues going to be fixed? 80% of the games I install through the software center can’t play because there is some sound problems (pops amp; crackles) yet no amount of trying can solve it. I do dislike windows but at least it doesn’t have 1/100th the sound issues ubuntu seems to have.
I really hope Ubuntu gets back on track with improving the system, not making new wallpapers and buttons. Does anyone leave their system as installed? It is so easy to customize everything anyway.
All I have to say on this matter has been summed up in this comment by Aysiu on the Ubuntuforum fame
” none).
Here is how the change could have gone well:
Mark Shuttleworth says to the design team, “Hey, I’m thinking about changing the position of the buttons on the windows from the right to left, mainly because I’m considering doing something cool with that freed-up right space later. Let’s do some usability testing on this to see if it’s feasible.”
The design team and Mark do some in-person usability testing and note specific benefits and drawbacks to the change.
Via mailing list, IRC, wiki entry, blueprint, or anything really, the design team and Mark announce to Lucid alpha testers the desire to try out a switch of the buttons and also sharing of the usability testing and what benefits and drawbacks they saw. Mark urges people to be honest about their experiences but also to give the new interface an honest chance. There is a noted place (online survey, forum thread, mailing list thread, bug report) by which Lucid testers can leave official feedback on their experiences. All feedback is supposed to be specific and constructive.
The design team announces before the first release candidate the results of processing usability testing and general alpha testing among Lucid users what they’re going to do about the move (or non-move) of buttons. Some people whine no matter what happens, but at least the community recognizes an attempt at transparency and a real sense of ownership of the process from the larger Ubuntu-using community, while there is still definite leadership and vision from Mark Shuttleworth.
Here is why the change did not go well (here’s what really happened):
Mark Shuttleworth decided the buttons should randomly go on the left. He prefers it that way and doesn’t really seem to have a good reason.
The design team implements the change without any accompanying explanation.
A bunch of Lucid users get shocked by the sudden change and start going back and forth speculating about why the change may have come about.
Various official Canonical employees who were not directly involved in the decision also speculate as to why it happened.
Lucid alpha testers start filing bugs reports and getting angry at both the arbitrary change and the lack of transparency in the process.
After a lot of arguing back and forth, Mark Shuttleworth mentions in passing in an IRC chat that the move was his idea and he just likes it that way. He intends to keep it that way but would be open to changing it if he gets enough specific feedback that people themselves were clicking the wrong thing and not worried others may click the wrong thing.
Mark Shuttleworth also hints on a bug report that the reason he moved things to the left is to free up space on the right side for some mysterious thing he may implement in Ubuntu 10.10.
Lucid alpha users continue to argue back and forth about it.
Of course you can argue that no matter what you do, you can’t please everybody, but come on! The first hypothetical scenario is far better than the second real scenario.”
One of the best things I found was when I moved the window buttons to the left side. I had to get into configuration, but once I did, I enjoyed the freedom to place buttons where I wanted to.
The reason I did put them on the left was, since I spend a lot of time web browsing, my cursor is on the left side of the screen, fiddling with my bookmarks. Besides, the tabs run from the left. The menus are all on the left. The buttons all are on the left, and my Ubuntu menu and shortcuts are all on the left. Putting the window buttons on the left just makes visual sense to me.
For those of you who have Ubuntu Tweak (a find app, for what it’s worth), it has a simple interface to move buttons to the right.
Even so, I think everyone should give left-side buttons a fair shot. It’s great.
Matt L.: Actually, I call that Internet Explorer style layout. Firefox is like that, with a very fixed layout and left to right orientation. Unless you have a bunch of addons to change it, unlike Opera which is a more object oriented, flexible interface. However, I understand how it work out for you and I agree in that context.
Opera, I think is less popular because it offers interface flexibility that not all users are ready for or necessarily needs. Chrome had a radical idea too with its interface, but they ended up being more popular than Opera in a short time. So I wonder in design terms what makes Chrome ticks even though its so different as well. I like the idea of Chrome moving things to the right and make the menu into a button, instead of listed out texts. This button-menu is becoming an adopted trend. I can only conclude that it had good marketing execution, Google being already very popular and they tied the browser in with their services.
My guess is if the Ubuntu design team is introducing something very innovate that look good and works well, with feature that peoples wants, then the ends justified the means and users will end up being happy.
What bothers us is that Ubuntu has not reveal their plan for what to do with the right side of the title bar. They have to introduce something innovative, if its just for the sake of moving the buttons position then it would be a flop.
On the other hand, I’m pretty conservative about the idea of desktop environment being practical. I tried out the Gnome Shell and pretty much hated it. It does everything slower and is just unnecessary eye candies. I use linux in the first place because its faster! Taking way the “taskbar” which is a proven concept for how many decades is bad idea. Every attempts that tries to spice up the taskbar just is eventually eye candies and unnecessary. However, Gnome 3 will not be out for a while, they will have to work hard to merges the idea of good design with practicality. Anyway, if the finished product is anything like right now with the Gnome Shell, then it would be similar to how people reacted to KDE4, except worse and I would have to find a new favorite desktop environment.
PS. I find the bunch of people declaring to stop using Ubuntu and getting all angry just because of the buttons position is pretty comical and goofy. The fanboyism mentality just like from other platforms, the worshiping of “brand names”. They find out about it and hail it above everything and of their own and then lash out when something isn’t their way. At least they could look for a better reasons such as inclusion of propriety codecs and drivers, Mono and the use of Yahoo search engine and as a result will be funded by Microsoft. Not that I agree with all of them, but I understand the need to make those decision for the brand to grow. In the end of the day, linux offer choices for those who are willing to a little of DIY, or just a bit of Google searching actually.
When I first saw that the buttons had been moved, I thought it a bad idea. It makes it too easy to close the window when what was really wanted was the edit menu. Really crappy for people with handicaps in relation to motor skills. Now on reading that the whole window/title bar thing is going to change it seems an even worse idea. Why change things twice when once would have done it. Fortunately I found an article explaining how to change things back to the way they should have been left in the first place. Rodnox in (10) above has also posted the method. Of course we could just go back to Karmic where it was done right by default. As for the human look it is still available to install for those of us who prefer it to the abortion that has been foisted on us (my opinion).
As long as all this works well on a laptop with 386meg of memory, I don’t care about the rest. The only reason my friends, work colleagues, family and myself use Ubuntu is because it runs on laptops and computers over 10 years old. So get that done and we’ll all be happy.
Windows Visa was no good because for the customer it brought only freshed-up theme and some geeky stuff inside the kernel. Ubuntu 10.10 seems to go the same way.
I prefer it on the left. In fact I had already changed it for myself last year on my netbook because it resulted in less mouse travel while using the small trackpad. It makes perfect sense to me as it has resulted in significant less mouse travel. Also, I do use my Mac Mini to sync my iPod Touch (that’s all I use it for) so I’m used to it anyway.
Read Matt L comment above (number 15). It’s the reason I had already moved by buttons to left as I said in my comment above.
Moving buttons is not an innovation. Moreover it is unwise because more people like it where they were – the amount of feedback proves this. It looks like a low-hanging fruit, but it’s a bitter one. And why change it, if it does not matter??
I don’t care about button positions. I just see these buttons, the new indicator-applet (reimplementing only parts of existing applets), the “updated” gcalctool and I deeply hope that the Canonical crew finds back to the time when they unerringly felt the needs of the majority of Linux users.
Example of a chance for innovation:
Many users still desperately wait for an easy-to-use, hardware-independent solution to synchronize their calendars among PCs, netbooks and mobiles. Opensync is not yet mature enough but would definitely benefit from an integration into Ubuntu. And then Ubuntu and its users would greatly benefit from that.
Please don’t move buttons but focus on things that do matter!
(My apologies if you are used to Windows. Then the initial sentence of this comment might be untrue :o)
I don’t see the point in the movement of the buttons. – And I feel that the storm of gnashing teeth that happened due to KDE’s is about to hit Gnome’s shores. – Here’s what I see that sucks.
It sucks that the community said that they didn’t want to see the change, and yet it IS happening. I think that the community will suffer from it. It already has.
There might be a shift of people going away from Ubuntu, maybe to Mint, maybe to Fedora, maybe to a Ubuntu install with another desktop. I for one, have considered moving to the LTS versions, as I don’t always care to deal with updating every 6 months, and tweaking my version to what I need and don’t need. I don’t need or use Evolution, But I do want or need the Gimp, etc…
Many of us work with Windows and Linux. The button paradigm shift in 10.04 makes it utterly annoying to have to click in a different place to close a window. Ubuntu, you were doing so well; now this. Very disappointed.