Are you aware of https://phabricator.kde.org/tag/plasma_kcm_redesign/?

There is already a task with a set of mockups.

We don't need a new hub. It only recently got a redesign. It's not a pre-requisite for use of QML. In fact many are already.

In T10278#172218, @ngraham wrote:

Are you aware of https://phabricator.kde.org/tag/plasma_kcm_redesign/?

Yes I am, that needs to be done.

In T10278#172220, @davidedmundson wrote:

There is already a task with a set of mockups.

We don't need a new hub. It only recently got a redesign. It's not a pre-requisite for use of QML. In fact many are already.

Not a new hub, but we can port the current ones completely to Kirigami/QML after we overhauled and ported every KCM.

Also, I think that most common (generally speaking) settings should be at the top. For example "Connections" is at the middle. This also should be applied to submenus: in Workspace Behavior, Desktop Effects comes first than Virtual Desktops, which is a more common setting. I don't know if I should create a task for that, because it seems to fit more in bugs.kde.org: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=437966

Also, currently the "Appearance" section has no header, which make it looks out of place with the rest of the sections like "Workspace", "System Administration" and so on. Maybe this header could be ditched?

FerenOS has a modified systemsettings5 and personally it's better organized:

Maybe some ideas could be borrowed from it.

To me that re-organization looks completely random. Why is "Virtual Desktops" not in the "Desktop" category? What logically connects the items in the "Advanced" category?

I don't think the current organization is amazing either, but that doesn't seem any better to me. It seems random just in different ways.

I agree with you. However, there are some things that I liked:

• The "advanced settings..." section. It can make the list less cluttered;
• The Desktop (aka Appearance) section. It puts more important settings related to appearance and puts the rest in the advanced section. Currently, the only section that doesn't have a header (e.g.: Personalization, System Administration, etc) is Appearance, which looks out of place. Or maybe the entire header thing could be ditched;
• The System category (Personalization and Hardware categories combined). Some settings like Users, Regional Settings, Notification are related to the system, so they feel out of place in a category named personalization. The "personalization" term is frequently used to describe settings related to the appearance of elements.

The "advanced settings..." section. It can make the list less cluttered;

We generally don't do explicit separation of settings into basic/advanced categories. See https://community.kde.org/Get_Involved/Design/Lessons_Learned#Basic.2Fadvanced_modes.

The Desktop (aka Appearance) section. It puts more important settings related to appearance and puts the rest in the advanced section. Currently, the only section that doesn't have a header (e.g.: Personalization, System Administration, etc) is Appearance, which looks out of place. Or maybe the entire header thing could be ditched;

The problem with using the work desktop is that it has multiple meanings. One user will interpret it to mean the actual desktop area under the windows. Others will interpret it more abstractly to mean "my whole workspace" while another person will interpret it to mean "the current desktop environment" AKA Plasma. For this reason, it's best to avoid it.

The System category (Personalization and Hardware categories combined). Some settings like Users, Regional Settings, Notification are related to the system, so they feel out of place in a category named personalization. The "personalization" term is frequently used to describe settings related to the appearance of elements.

Sure, but then you again have a categorization problem: does an appearance-related thing belong in "personalization" or "appearance" or "desktop?" Ultimately what we do in other places is have a split between "Appearance" and "Behavior". That would probably make sense to do here, especially because we already have an Appearance category.