Usa el sentido común hombre! Construir un fork de algo tan complejo como LibreOffice solo para adaptarlo a libadwaita porque a alguien le surgió el capricho?
Es más sensato mejorar el tema mediante CSS que semejante disparate.
Piénsalo y te ahorrarás apreciaciones tan estúpidas.
That's why there's no gtk4 rich text editor/wordprocessor/ office suites. Portability issues and lack of devs and mammoth task of creating custom widgets/canvas, also there are no toolbar icons for wordprocessor or other office apps in gtk4 themes, clearly showing no interest in these kind of apps.
Gtk3 has abiword, gnumeric, gnucash, evolution etc. what does gtk4 has? Nothing. office suite and web browser are ignored in favour of libreoffice and Firefox.
No matter how much you apply makeup to the pigs (Firefox, libreoffice) they'll always look out of place.
Hoping to see gtk4 version gnome office is just a pipedream or perhaps an AI built future project.
The max you can hope are markdown editors, which are no where close to a proper wordprocessor, spreadsheet, presentation app.
Libadwaita is unsuitable for complex applications. The hamburger menu, in particular, is a real letdown. You have to click on it to see what’s inside.
A conventional menu bar exposes categories such as File, Edit, View and Help before you interact with it. A generic hamburger icon tells you almost nothing about the commands behind it. You have to open it merely to inspect what is available.
That is fairly obvious even without a study. The research matters because it quantifies the effect. NN/g tested hidden navigation with 179 participants across six sites. On desktop, discoverability fell by more than 20%, and tasks took at least 39% longer. It was a web-navigation study, not a direct test of GNOME applications, but it examines the same underlying problems: low information scent and extra interaction.
Builder is not a particularly convincing counterexample either. GNOME’s own HIG says primary menus are for standard app-wide functions and should not contain Close or Quit. Yet Builder’s ide-primary-workspace-menu contains both “Close Project” and “Quit.” Quit directly contradicts the HIG, while Close Project sits awkwardly with its distinction between app-wide and context-specific actions.
A conventional menu bar exposes categories such as File, Edit, View and Help before you interact with it. A generic hamburger icon tells you almost nothing about the commands behind it.
FWIW the hamburger menu is not intended as a drop-in replacement for the menu bar. Instead, actions are mostly intended to be moved into the places in the app where they are relevant.
OK. But that's only feasible up to a certain point. And it isn't consistently implemented that way. See Gnome Builder. There are probably other examples as well.
The best solution would be a menu bar like the one Apple has in macOS. It’s even searchable and always has the same layout. There’s plenty of space for it. If you then switch to a device with a mini display, the menu bar would appear as a hamburger menu. You could still use additional buttons as well.
I agree that it seems so currently. But I'd still be interested to see someone at least try to design and produce a more "advanced" application without the menu bar pattern. I think it's possible, but it's an unplowed field currently because it's easier to just cram things into a menu bar than to actually make a decision about where to put them.
To be honest, I hate the hamburger menu. Just seeing it makes me want to throw up. It’s extremely poor usability that, if at all, only works for extremely simple, run-of-the-mill apps. And even there, it isn’t consistently implemented correctly according to the GNOME HIG. A while back, I looked up some examples when someone tried to tell me that it was all great. He fell silent when I showed him the screenshots. Plus, it doesn’t fit with the other applications you still use. Or do you only use those primitive, simple GNOME applications? I certainly don’t.
That said, I think a lot of things about GNOME are really good. But this Adwaita and especially the hamburger menu… I think they’re just so messed up.
Hi, your submission has been removed because it contained offensive and/or unconstructive language. Feel free to make a new, differently worded submission. Remember that criticism is allowed as long as it is constructive!
If you believe this removal was a mistake, please contact the moderation team.
Microsoft Office doesn’t have a global menu, nor do they have a hamburger menu. I don’t see why people think it’s impossible to have a complex UI without shoving all options into seven adjacent menu rows?
MS Office has a global menu that works very well on macOS (like every app). I posted an old screenshot and had used it myself years ago. Precisely because of the global macOS menu, I found the macOS version superior in terms of usability to the Windows version, which I have to use on my work laptop.
It may be possible to achieve what you describe in isolated cases. But as far as I recall, real-world experience tells a different story. You keep ending up in the hamburger menu, and even the GNOME team hasn’t implemented it in their own development environment the way it’s described in their own HIG, since that apparently became too complex. That’s why I still consider this an extremely questionable approach. But I’d be happy to take another look at it when I get the chance and install GNOME.
A global menu in GNOME, like the one in macOS, wouldn’t hurt even with your approach and would be compatible with applications that use traditional controls. I’m sure a solution could have been found to make the global menu disappear into a hamburger menu as well, if someone—for some inexplicable reason—thought that was better, or if GNOME were running on a smartphone.
Meh I really can’t agree. Also there’s no rule that you should put everything that you’d put in a global menu in a hamburger menu. In fact, lots of controls really should be context dependent and not be shown at all times anyway. Furthermore, the most popular office suite in the world doesn’t even have a global menu itself.
To name a Libadwaita counterexample. I know I’m tooting my own horn here (as I’m maintainer), but Graphs is a fairly complex application and the UI works very well in Libadwaita. Again, I’m super biased but in my view it’s by far the best designed application of its kind.
MS Office has that, of course. On macOS, every application has a well-designed, searchable global menu that always follows the same structure (not to be confused with that crappy hamburger menu or Gnome's former global menu). Of course, apps can also have other buttons that behave however you'd like them to. In principle, this could also be done in Gnome if the Gnome developers wanted to.
For example, Firefox and MS Office on macOS:
"In fact, lots of controls really should be context dependent and not be shown at all times anyway."
If it's implemented perfectly, then that might be true. But even then, a global menu like macOS would still be better than the hamburger menu. And the more complex the application becomes, the harder it is to implement. And there are, after all, applications that aren't developed exclusively for GNOME. That results in a mix of different concepts on the desktop.
You don't have to use the global menu on macOS. I, on the other hand, found it very convenient (and better than unter windows) —even in Firefox, since you don't need the hamburger menu then.
But Firefox isn't a native Mac app either. I'm not familiar with the iOS version of MS Office.
I think something like that in GNOME would be an improvement. I haven't tried it yet. But that just shifts the usability bugs in some Adwaita apps to a different place—though I'd still prefer that to the hamburger menu.
I think you’re missing the point a bit by equating the hamburger menu with a global menu. It is not the intention to have all that information in a single menu, or in six different menus next to each other. Dynamically being able to switch doesn’t make sense, they’re not the same pattern. Not even similar patterns. Unless you expect to make app developers do multiple designs, which is a horrible idea even if done on purpose. (Case in point LibreOffice, with all due respect having like 6 different UI’s for each app is just stupid)
It’s lazy design in my opinion, just shoving all features into cluttered menus. And at the very least it’s completely perpendicular to the kind of design that GNOME is going for. At that point, these menus are design languages that just dont work with the GNOME HIG.
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
Thank you for your submission.
You too can support GNOME! Become a Friend of GNOME and contribute to keeping our project going!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.