Talk:Unity (user interface)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Unity (user interface):
  • Find a better source (Slashdot is low-quality) for the claim "images are anonymized before being sent to the user's computer." See if reviewers have changed their minds. If so, reorganize the Privacy controversy subsection to list first the current reception, and later the past controversy.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Linux (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).
 

/Archive 1

This huge article needs to be pruned. In particular, the reception section.[edit]

I think this article is too long. Unity is just one Linux shell, I don't think it is notable enough for such detailed coverage. In particular, the "Reception" section is bloated. We don't need a detailed timeline of Unity's reception. I am going to try to prune this section. I ask you to continue my work and prune the rest of the article. -- Jorge (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason that there is such a large reception section is that this interface is very controversial, far more so than any other desktop user interface has been, hence the extensive coverage and criticism. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
But 3.5 pages of text about reviewers' opinion on a Linux shell? I think it should be pruned a little. The Reviews of early versions subsection alone is 2 pages, and deal with obsolete, unsupported Ubuntu versions (the 2010 subsubsection even reviews an alpha version!). Can we prune (by removing some of the detail) at least this subsection?
On the specific subtopic of reviews of preview software, user User:Estevezj seems to agree with me. See Talk:Unity_(user_interface)/Archive_1#Critical_reception -- Jorge (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I do agree with Jorge, both on the beta reviews and the relative balance placed on critical reviews. I think that summary style is a good compromise: the critical response can be placed into the proper perspective relative to the rest of the article by splitting the bulk of the critical reception section into its own article, as has been done with other controversial topics (cf. Criticism of Microsoft Windows, Criticism of Windows Vista, Criticism of the Bible, etc).— James Estevez (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
From my understanding of Wikipedia:Criticism, controversy should rarely have a dedicated article. And Unity is clearly not notable enough for its own "Controversy about Unity" article. I propose that the reception of early versions of Unity be removed from here and integrated into the corresponding sections of List_of_Ubuntu_releases. -- Jorge (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Moving to List_of_Ubuntu_releases is a much better idea. I think that's probably the way to go.— James Estevez (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of sources[edit]

Some of the sources are bad. I am studying Wikipedia policy on source reliability and evaluating each source in the Reception section. One source that already stands out is http://desktoplinuxreviews.com. The writer does seem to have professional writing experience (see http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/about/) but it still is a one-person blog with no Wikipedia article about it, a very low Alexa rank (322,029), and no hits in Google Scholar. -- Jorge (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

LinuxDesktopReviews is a self-published blog by Jim Lynch. The reason it is a WP:RS is because his reviews are also widely published in other publications, making him an established expert in the field as outlined at WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fdesktoplinuxreviews.com_and_http:.2F.2Fwww.omgubuntu.co.uk -- Jorge (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

I think a To-do_list is good to focus efforts. If you agree on making one, I have some suggestions for the Reception section:

  1. Find a better source (Slashdot is low-quality) for the claim that images are anonymized before being sent to the user's computer. See if reviewers have changed their minds. If so, reorganize the section to list first the current reception, and later the past controversy.
  2. Consolidate information from List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Ubuntu_12.10_(Quantal_Quetzal)
  3. Possibly read [1] (which is notable because it was cited by [2]) and maybe report it, if it is still relevant (I think the shopping lens has switched to HTTPS since that analysis) and has anything notable that is not covered by [3]. -- Jorge (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
In general I agree, except I don't think the section List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Ubuntu_12.10_(Quantal_Quetzal) needs to be cut down. The shopping lens was very controversial for both that release and Unity. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that for the reasons explained in Don't repeat yourself it is better to consolidate this information in one place, and add a quick summary and a reference in all other places. Like I did here -- Jorge (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
That can be done using the "Main" template, but right now I think there is enough lack of ref and quote overlap to leave it as is. - Ahunt (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I will put only the first task (that one regarding anonymization of images) on the TO DO. It is clearly very important and it seems we agree on it. --Jorge (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good! - Ahunt (talk)

NPOV[edit]

The article has acquired a distinct pro-Unity tone over the years. I don't think this is because of conscious COI editing, rather that Unity has indeed improved somewhat, and people who don't like it have switched to alternatives like LXDE so no longer pay attention. --Ef80 (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Unity (user interface) vs Unity (graphical shell)[edit]

Isn't unity rather a graphical shell then a user interface? User:ScotXWt@lk 16:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)