Gnome Files: A detailed UI examination

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Usability of GNOME Files (Nautilus)

  • Many commenters agree the article captures “papercuts”:
    • Split “list / view options” button that visually reads as one control but has two unrelated actions.
    • Path bar that historically required Ctrl+L to edit; newer GNOME 46+ allows clicking, but many distros still ship older behavior.
    • No explicit “Up” button to go to parent directory.
    • Hidden / shifting scrollbars and small right‑click hit‑areas in list view (hard to create new items or open terminals when the folder is “full”).
  • Others report these issues as minor or already fixed, or can’t reproduce them; some suspect distro patches or user tweaks.
  • Titlebar-embedded controls can make window dragging and precise clicking harder, especially with custom browser chrome.

Discoverability, shortcuts, and UX principles

  • Debate over relying on keyboard shortcuts (e.g., Ctrl+L) for core actions:
    • Critics say this violates “recognition over recall” and hurts discoverability, accessibility, and non‑keyboard workflows.
    • Defenders argue GNOME is heavily keyboard‑driven by design and shortcuts are acceptable for advanced tasks.
  • Several participants explicitly map the critique to classic usability heuristics (consistency, visibility of system status, error prevention, etc.) and call for proper user testing rather than anecdotal “it’s fine for me”.

Comparisons to other file managers and DEs

  • macOS Finder: often cited as having a very similar design language; some claim it avoids many GNOME papercuts, others call it a “massive regression” and even worse than GNOME Files.
  • Windows Explorer: some prefer it strongly; others highlight bugs, slowness, and odd behaviors.
  • KDE Dolphin is frequently praised as more powerful and configurable, with better file operations, at the cost of more visual/UX inconsistency.
  • Alternative file managers mentioned: Nemo, Thunar, Worker, PCManFM, Midnight Commander, Total Commander clones.

Design philosophy, power users vs simplicity

  • Strong split in views:
    • Supporters see GNOME as the closest thing to a modern, consistent, minimal desktop; good defaults, touch‑friendly, and “just works” if you don’t customize heavily.
    • Critics see it as opinionated to the point of hostility: removing features, hiding options, breaking extensions, and reducing “hackability” that used to define Unix desktops.
  • Some argue GNOME is optimized for casual or tablet‑style use while neglecting power users and multi‑hour‑per‑day workflows; others say KDE is the one that caters to old‑school “power users”.

File chooser and GTK ecosystem issues

  • GNOME/GTK file chooser is widely criticized as “the worst part”:
    • Long‑standing bugs when pasting paths; fragile, spaghetti code that devs are reluctant to touch.
    • Capabilities hidden or removed; overrides via portals were disabled without a clean replacement.
  • Complaint that GNOME’s design choices have “infected” GTK in general (removal of traditional menubars, hidden scrollbars), making them hard to avoid even in other DEs.

Touch, accessibility, and hardware

  • Some users report GNOME works surprisingly well on tablets and touch laptops; others say real‑world tablet use is poor and that many GNOME apps remain mouse‑ or keyboard‑centric with tiny touch targets.
  • Accessibility and “usable by everyone” claims are questioned, especially for users with motor impairments or those relying on discoverability rather than memorized shortcuts.

Alternatives and customization strategies

  • Multiple commenters describe abandoning GNOME for KDE, XFCE, COSMIC, MATE, window managers like xmonad, or niche file managers.
  • Others stay on GNOME but replace Files (e.g., with Nemo/Worker) or lean heavily on extensions, while noting that extensions often break between releases.