I don't use Gnome myself, but I have over many years (and before Gnome 3 came out) come to similar conclusions about what you need or don't need, by slowly removing more and more Gnome components from my Gnome 1/2 setup until I only really had the window manager running.

So, thanks to virtual desktops (aka workspaces) and superior window management (like moving/resizing windows with the keyboard, changing focus directionally instead just Alt-Tab, and being able to snap windows to corners or other windows), I tended to have no windows hidden behind other windows. This makes the taskbar and the minimize button unnecessary.

Because I launched apps through shortcuts and the terminal (now I use dmenu), the start menu was unnecessary. The start menu is slow to navigate, and inexplicably only uses a small fraction of the screen. Gnome's launcher thingy uses the whole screen and has a nice search bar.

I never thought putting shortcuts on the desktop was a good idea. They're hidden behind all the windows! Windows 98 (or 95B?) had to invent a new button just to get rid of all the windows so the desktop can be shown. You can create shortcuts on Gnome's launcher thingy and that goes in front of your windows. Whoa imagine that.

I also got rid of title bars from windows on my own setup, because I use keyboard shortcuts to do those things and title bars use up precious screen space. Obviously for users using the mouse, you cannot get rid of the title bar. Gnome opted to instead put extra buttons in there, since title bars tended to be mostly empty space. I think it's a good idea.

I do like when stuff is a little bigger and a bit of space is in between stuff. I think it's aesthetically pleasing and my eyesight isn't great either.

Also since I only rarely use Gnome myself, but I do have it set up on my mom's computer, I appreciate that it's not too overwhelming with the options and buttons. That makes it easier for me to find stuff when I do occasionally use it, and I think it makes it easier for her as well.