[ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
The problem with the Windows way is that there is a complete lack of consistency in that environment. Learning a new application is a complex task since they all behave differently. As an example, there is the question of whether it places itself in the notification area! Really, programs should not place themselves there. The notification area exists for programs to present information about notable happenings. That Rhythmbox is running is by no means a notable happening. The notification area's purpose has been extended to serving as a home for programs which always run in the background like NetworkManager, and I for one consider that acceptable. NetworkManager isn't just placing a link to itself there; its entire user interface resides in that notification area icon. Besides, one's network status most definitely is a notification, just as the fact that printing or bluetooth is enabled. A nice thing to note with the programs that do belong there is that they do not have Quit options in their context menus, because they really are core functions of the operating system. I think that is a good rule of thumb. (Then again, I am not a fan of the Quit option anywhere since programs should scale down and quit automatically, but that's another discussion). GNOME gets routinely bashed for trimming features and having applications with few options, but that is really not the aim of an interface like this. The idea is to create an environment where the options people expect of programs they use do not need to be rediscovered for every program. The XDG user directories standard plays a nice part there. As an unusual example, there is currently a problem where every single program is implementing its own download limiter. In each case, the user must hunt through the program's preferences and change the download speed limit. That is not intuitive! A better approach would be for every GNOME application to completely kill that option and stop caring about download limits. ...Yep, I just suggested that a function everyone uses is killed. The next step would be to add network shaping as a function of NetworkManager. Bah! GNOME puilling more options! the community would respond. That would most definitely be the intent here! Sure, programs have a lot of options in Windows or KDE. That is definitely not a good thing, though. The problem with those enormous options dialogs is that everybody must face them. There is a ton of duplication in these environments. That huge list of options? It's really just a hindrance; any conventional user will be very annoyed that he has to tell the computer the same thing twice, even if that is being said to different programs. At fault there is not the individual programs (yet) but the desktop environment for failing to do its job of creating consistency. Consistency means an easily learned desktop where standard, expected functions are always in the same place rather than pushed over to one of Options, Preferences, Current Profile or Settings for fifteen different applications. Back to the application lister idea... One reason people like MacOS is because it theoretically delivers in the intuitive, predictable programs front. Any program worth its salt has preferences under its bold lettered name in the menu bar, for example. Mostly, though, MacOS's consistency comes from the fact that its most popular applications are all developed by the same company. Of course those ones would interact smoothly! With desktop Linux we are really pushing new ground in the consistency department, where both Apple and Microsoft fear to tread -- instead, those two behemoths see fit to simply integrate their own built in programs and hope that nobody tries differently. Still, Apple does succeed (properly or not) in creating a desktop experience where the user does not need to repeat himself. The application lister is one way to create consistency in user interface. People do not expect or want applications to spread themselves over the notification area. That would be bad because the notification area does not sort the applications (or link them to their windows), because the notification area was not designed for this purpose and does not provide the correct functions to make it useful for it. It is very confusing when only the occasional program will provide an icon representing itself as a whole. The Application List idea gives that functionality to every program, thus ensuring complete consistency and allowing people to expect the intuitive functions it provides. Intuitive features? Why, that would be ideas such as that processes are running no matter what workspace you are looking at. At the moment, if I want to open a new window for the web browser I am running, I have two choices: Find an open window of said web browser, or find its launcher. Both are stupid. Why would the function of opening a new window be available only within an open window? Furthermore, what does opening a new window have to
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
Dylan McCall wrote: The notification area exists for programs to present information about notable happenings. That Rhythmbox is running is by no means a notable happening. If you want to make a difference, get involved in the specifications that matter. Most importantly -- _FILE BUGS_ against apps that break the specification in Ubuntu. http://standards.freedesktop.org/systemtray-spec/systemtray-spec-0.2.html Quote: From a UI standpoint, the system tray is normally used for transient icons that indicate some special state, while full-blown applets are used for permanent dock/panel features. For example, a system tray icon might appear to tell the user that they have new mail, or have an incoming instant message, or something along those lines. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
Dylan McCall wrote: The problem with the Windows way is that there is a complete lack of consistency in that environment. Learning a new application is a complex task since they all behave differently. As an example, there is the question of whether it places itself in the notification area! Really, programs should not place themselves there. The notification area exists for programs to present information about notable happenings. That Rhythmbox is running is by no means a notable happening. The notification area's purpose has been extended to serving as a home for programs which always run in the background like NetworkManager, and I for one consider that acceptable. NetworkManager isn't just placing a link to itself there; its entire user interface resides in that notification area icon. Besides, one's network status most definitely is a notification, just as the fact that printing or bluetooth is enabled. A nice thing to note with the programs that do belong there is that they do not have Quit options in their context menus, because they really are core functions of the operating system. I think that is a good rule of thumb. (Then again, I am not a fan of the Quit option anywhere since programs should scale down and quit automatically, but that's another discussion). The problem is one of necessity. The reason so many programs use the notification area is that it is an incredibly useful place for a running program to sit, and saves a massive amount of space by not being on the taskbar. At the moment I have MSN (which I stay on in 'offline' mode so people can send me im's) Azureus, Exensis Suitcase (font management), Avast (antivirus) and occasionally skype all using it. If we were to get rid of the ability for programs to use it, we would need to replace it with something as useful as while it is not an ideal solution and possibly a misapplication of its original purpose the reason for it is there was a need and it happened to get co-opted to fill this need. If you removed the functionality from my system without replacing it with something it would be a massive drop in utility. Possibly the best solution is to create two areas side by side, one for apps and one for notifications, maybe seperate them with a half-width icon of space - best of both worlds. With desktop Linux we are really pushing new ground in the consistency department, where both Apple and Microsoft fear to tread -- instead, those two behemoths see fit to simply integrate their own built in programs and hope that nobody tries differently. I wouldn't go that far. Apple tends to be best for consistency, followed by MS then Linux. As an example the flagship Linux graphics app 'Gimp' has *two* file menus. On Windows it actually has *three*!!! Want a new document? You click 'File-...' Oops, the option you want is in that /other/ File menu. And this is a major piece of software, and it sports one of the most non-standard, unintuitive and convoluted interfaces know to man. It's better to have one mediocre standard that 5 good ones, which seems to be Linux' problem. That being said everyone uses their computers in massively different ways, so what is good for one may be horrible for another, and an option that you think is pointless may be relied on by someone else. I think it's why doing UI design is so difficult - because there are no absolutes and everything is subjective. I think the key is to just keep discussing it and see what ideas stick. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
Jan Niklas Hasse wrote: GNOME Applets aren't an alternative because they are only available for GNOME. XCFE, KDE, Windows for example use GTK+ applications, too! So please stop blaming developers that they shouldn't use the notification area without providing an alternative with the same quality or wait until such an alternative is available. I don't think anyone was blaming anyone. I have an extremely difficult time seeing exactly what you appear flustered about. The reality is that there HAS been work to try and get the Notification Tray some standardization. Free Software tries to support more than a few ideas at FreeDesktop.org. This seems relevant. If you want small icons for your running programs, I would assume this can be accomplished through other means. It _appears_ that the goal of that spec hints toward this. If an app isn't 'notifying' you of something in a transient manner, it simply doesn't appear it should be in that tray according to the spec. That could very well be a bug. Sincerely, TJS signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
El 10/02/2008, a las 21:17, Andrew Laignel escribió: Dylan McCall wrote: The problem with the Windows way is that there is a complete lack of consistency in that environment. Learning a new application is a complex task since they all behave differently. As an example, there is the question of whether it places itself in the notification area! Really, programs should not place themselves there. The notification area exists for programs to present information about notable happenings. That Rhythmbox is running is by no means a notable happening. The notification area's purpose has been extended to serving as a home for programs which always run in the background like NetworkManager, and I for one consider that acceptable. NetworkManager isn't just placing a link to itself there; its entire user interface resides in that notification area icon. Besides, one's network status most definitely is a notification, just as the fact that printing or bluetooth is enabled. A nice thing to note with the programs that do belong there is that they do not have Quit options in their context menus, because they really are core functions of the operating system. I think that is a good rule of thumb. (Then again, I am not a fan of the Quit option anywhere since programs should scale down and quit automatically, but that's another discussion). The problem is one of necessity. The reason so many programs use the notification area is that it is an incredibly useful place for a running program to sit, and saves a massive amount of space by not being on the taskbar. At the moment I have MSN (which I stay on in 'offline' mode so people can send me im's) Azureus, Exensis Suitcase (font management), Avast (antivirus) and occasionally skype all using it. Hi Andrew! So you usually use the system tray to store some open apps. Let me ask you few things... Why do you think that firefox doesn't have an icon in the system tray? Why, for example, gedit doesn't goes to the notification area? I think that those icons like MSN or Azureus are very useful for you, but they could be replaced with a good application selector. You can do it like Mac OS X bar does, if you have a torrent finished, a red emblem is displayed over the icon with a number inside that shows you how many torrents have finished. That would be as useful as the notification area icon I think! And you can add some right-button options into the application selector so, again, you can have the same features. Wich makes, in my opinion, app selector a better option is that you divide those operating system services (or system applications) and those Banshee, Pidgin applications (I like to call them desktop applications). The difference is that you don't have a menu entry on Applications in gnome desktop that launches sound manager, but you have some Pidgin, Skype launchers. Why store them in the same place if they're different things? The only thing that application launcher would do is separate two different things, but conserving system tray functionality. What do you think about it? If we were to get rid of the ability for programs to use it, we would need to replace it with something as useful as while it is not an ideal solution and possibly a misapplication of its original purpose the reason for it is there was a need and it happened to get co-opted to fill this need. If you removed the functionality from my system without replacing it with something it would be a massive drop in utility. Completely agree. If this goes further, that apps in system tray _should not_ be removed untill that new feature is completely implented and functional. Possibly the best solution is to create two areas side by side, one for apps and one for notifications, maybe seperate them with a half-width icon of space - best of both worlds. You mean two areas in the top bar? I think that this is not a great idea. We're trying to make some notification icons monochrome to reduce visual impact, so putting more things into the system tray would go against that point. And I think that we're almost all agree about those monochrome icons in the system tray. With desktop Linux we are really pushing new ground in the consistency department, where both Apple and Microsoft fear to tread -- instead, those two behemoths see fit to simply integrate their own built in programs and hope that nobody tries differently. I wouldn't go that far. Apple tends to be best for consistency, followed by MS then Linux. As an example the flagship Linux graphics app 'Gimp' has *two* file menus. On Windows it actually has *three*!!! Want a new document? You click 'File-...' Oops, the option you want is in that /other/ File menu. And this is a major piece of software, and it sports one of the most non-standard, unintuitive and convoluted interfaces know to man. It's better to
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
On Feb 10, 2008 10:14 PM, Troy James Sobotka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Niklas Hasse wrote: GNOME Applets aren't an alternative because they are only available for GNOME. XCFE, KDE, Windows for example use GTK+ applications, too! So please stop blaming developers that they shouldn't use the notification area without providing an alternative with the same quality or wait until such an alternative is available. I don't think anyone was blaming anyone. I have an extremely difficult time seeing exactly what you appear flustered about. I'm flustered about losing all my loved tray icons like skype, pidgin, rhythmbox, tracker. And these bug reports (remove tray icon, that's not the place for an application to be) exist! The reality is that there HAS been work to try and get the Notification Tray some standardization. Free Software tries to support more than a few ideas at FreeDesktop.org. This seems relevant. That's good and i hope that this work gets finished before someones is filling out new bug reports. If you want small icons for your running programs, I would assume this can be accomplished through other means. As i said, i'm not aware of any good working alternative. If an app isn't 'notifying' you of something in a transient manner, it simply doesn't appear it should be in that tray according to the spec. That could very well be a bug. You're right, but i would mark it as a WONTFIX, because there's no alternative for the developers. That's exactly what i wanted to say: Completely agree. If this goes further, that apps in system tray _should not_ be removed untill that new feature is completely implented and functional. And if they shouldn't be removed, their shouldn't be any bug reports demanding that. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 13:14 -0800, Troy James Sobotka wrote: If you want small icons for your running programs, I would assume this can be accomplished through other means. It seems that it can't, since developers keep using the notification are for this purpose. If an app isn't 'notifying' you of something in a transient manner, it simply doesn't appear it should be in that tray according to the spec. I agree. Unfortunately (it appears that) app developers have no other way to provide equivalent functionality (without resorting to Gnome-, KDE- or Xfce-only solutions). -- Greg -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
El 10/02/2008, a las 22:34, Jan Niklas Hasse escribió: That's exactly what i wanted to say: Completely agree. If this goes further, that apps in system tray _should not_ be removed untill that new feature is completely implented and functional. And if they shouldn't be removed, their shouldn't be any bug reports demanding that. Completely agree. Let's design a new interface. Brainstorming is here. I will post some mockups this following week. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:30 -0800, Troy James Sobotka wrote: For example, a system tray icon might appear to tell the user that they have new mail, or have an incoming instant message, or something along those lines. I guess Evolution's flashing envelope means “You have a new message! Wait a sec, you really don't. Oh, hang on! Yes you do! No, actually you don't. Yes! Mail! No. None. Mail! None.” etc. :) -- Greg -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
Álvaro Medina Ballester wrote: If Ubuntu is going to lead GNU/Linux revolution, let's start thinking some things, lets make some specifications, let's design a new gui for gnome and let's help gnome's team to develop it! I'm glad to know that there are a lot of people interested in this :) Cheers! I'll try to reply to the rest tomorrow - gotta go to bed now. I totally agree though and have been thinking about a similar idea for a few months now. Basically design a mockup system of the ultimate desired system, complete with menus, software and detailed documentation on behaviour, and more importantly, reasons for this behaviour. It seems quite a lot of developers use a closed source version as a reference when creating a FOSS version. I believe that the open source community would benefit massively from a 'virtual distro' which could appeal to the creative types normally excluded from the development process and provide a bridge between usability and code. It would also apply the 'many eyes' theory to UI design and provide an alternate place for developers to get ideas from. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
That much (about desktop-neutrality) is definitely true, Jan. That's why the idea of building an application lister applet is a slow one, at best... A GNOME-centric proof of concept wouldn't hurt, but it would definitely be sensible to have a solid addition to the FreeDesktop standards somewhere. I think it would make sense to stop the application lister from listing windows on its own, and instead use a common protocol to determine open projects (documents, web pages, etc.) which can be swapped between with it. Right now, the systems are very tied to window managers, which doesn't strike me as an ideal solution for scalability. That's probably another thought for another day. (Not really urgent...) Mind you, the existing systems require no real input from applications, and the GNOME applet could theoretically fall back to guessing, as well. The extra functionality would only be an addition gained from applications that talk to that particular applet when possible. And no, I don't think using the notification area to minimize applications should be encouraged, even when there is currently no alternative. The standards say not to, and as long as an application breaks those standards this system gets more and more confuddled. I was reminded a moment ago that Evolution's (otherwise good) mail notification /blinks/, likely to attract attention to itself in the only way reliably possible while it is surrounded by iconified music players. Notifications should not need to blink; simply being present in the notification area should be demonstration enough (to both the underlying software systems and the user) that they are notable. Blinking is on par with those spam-like Flash-powered advertisements with ugly voice-overs and pink text overlapping the page. The idea that becoming a notification saves space is a very, very bad assumption. The notification area could easily consume half the screen in one desktop environment, while the window list exists as a small menu (like the panel's Window Selector applet). One very important point of these standards is that the desktop environment can predict how applications behave, thus ensuring consistent behaviour and a significant level of freedom for the developers of said environment. Application developers needn't worry at all about how a particular environment is handling a minimized application - in fact, it would be to everyone's benefit if they _did not_ at the application level. Application developers arbitrarily deciding hey, that notification area is smaller and tidier to minimize to in the desktop environment I am using! is a lot like people throwing in ugly CSS hacks to support Internet Explorer, such as utilizing that horrendous comments parsing bug to work around certain browsers' lack of min-width. It may do the trick here, but will it work everywhere else? The system is designed so that the application is not in (much) control of anything outside its window, just as an HTML / CSS page is not really in control over how the browser displays it. It's about ensuring that the visual reresentation (the web browser in that latter example) can freely change, producing a more flexible and scalable environment while the applications that live in it transparently adapt, quietly getting better and better with the only cost of entry being some initial integration effort. With GTK, for example, the end user can change the language or font size while the user-land programs that use GTK do not need any actual changes themselves to support this /significant/ alteration to the the final output. As soon as a program decides to take resizing widgets upon itself, however, that stops working. By all means, I encourage anyone to show concern about notifications and window switchers at the desktop environment level -- after all, something clearly needs work. We have a glorious future to seal here, before applications get too set in the current ways! -Dylan On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Jan Niklas Hasse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 10, 2008 8:30 PM, Troy James Sobotka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dylan McCall wrote: The notification area exists for programs to present information about notable happenings. That Rhythmbox is running is by no means a notable happening. If you want to make a difference, get involved in the specifications that matter. Most importantly -- _FILE BUGS_ against apps that break the specification in Ubuntu. http://standards.freedesktop.org/systemtray-spec/systemtray-spec-0.2.html Quote: From a UI standpoint, the system tray is normally used for transient icons that indicate some special state, while full-blown applets are used for permanent dock/panel features. For example, a system tray icon might appear to tell the user that they have new mail, or have an incoming instant message, or something along those lines. GNOME Applets aren't an alternative because they are only available for GNOME.
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
Mockups, eh? Well, here are a few to look at. Firstly, I have indeed been very very slowly poking at the application switcher thought as a panel applet. Not really anywhere far yet, but this discussion got me opening up the project again. I guess that's a step in the right direction... I am toying with a button-looking container with some toggle buttons within for each process. The one you see here is really just an ugly hack (and a mockup, obviously), but it shows the idea: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2454/screenshotmainpyoq9.png The icon on the left is for the process, while the other two text labels are its open windows. Icons for individual windows are sadly not happening... something creative will have to be done. Robin.com.au's very clever mockup is what got me going on this precise tangent: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=320315 -Dylan On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Andrew Laignel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Álvaro Medina Ballester wrote: If Ubuntu is going to lead GNU/Linux revolution, let's start thinking some things, lets make some specifications, let's design a new gui for gnome and let's help gnome's team to develop it! I'm glad to know that there are a lot of people interested in this :) Cheers! I'll try to reply to the rest tomorrow - gotta go to bed now. I totally agree though and have been thinking about a similar idea for a few months now. Basically design a mockup system of the ultimate desired system, complete with menus, software and detailed documentation on behaviour, and more importantly, reasons for this behaviour. It seems quite a lot of developers use a closed source version as a reference when creating a FOSS version. I believe that the open source community would benefit massively from a 'virtual distro' which could appeal to the creative types normally excluded from the development process and provide a bridge between usability and code. It would also apply the 'many eyes' theory to UI design and provide an alternate place for developers to get ideas from. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
On 10/02/2008, Dylan McCall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mockups, eh? Well, here are a few to look at. Firstly, I have indeed been very very slowly poking at the application switcher thought as a panel applet. Not really anywhere far yet, but this discussion got me opening up the project again. I guess that's a step in the right direction... I am toying with a button-looking container with some toggle buttons within for each process. The one you see here is really just an ugly hack (and a mockup, obviously), but it shows the idea: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2454/screenshotmainpyoq9.png The icon on the left is for the process, while the other two text labels are its open windows. Icons for individual windows are sadly not happening... something creative will have to be done. Robin.com.au's very clever mockup is what got me going on this precise tangent: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=320315 I hate to be a party killer, but unless you guys are prepared to follow this up with code (GObjects in C, not an interpreted language), then there is a snowman's chance in hell of this ever becoming real[1]. There is unfortunately no such thing as idle developers, who just happen to have a lot of spare time and no project to hack on. On top of the development there is also the politics involved - consider the case of Novells main menu. Novell put a *lot* of work here with many seasoned developers, and it is still not included in Gnome. Getting Gnome main inclusion for such a core piece of the desktop is essential. Ubuntu can not maintain such a piece of software without it being in the loop. Cheers, Mikkel [1]: This applies to basically all circulated ideas popping up on this mailing list. On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Andrew Laignel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Álvaro Medina Ballester wrote: If Ubuntu is going to lead GNU/Linux revolution, let's start thinking some things, lets make some specifications, let's design a new gui for gnome and let's help gnome's team to develop it! I'm glad to know that there are a lot of people interested in this :) Cheers! I'll try to reply to the rest tomorrow - gotta go to bed now. I totally agree though and have been thinking about a similar idea for a few months now. Basically design a mockup system of the ultimate desired system, complete with menus, software and detailed documentation on behaviour, and more importantly, reasons for this behaviour. It seems quite a lot of developers use a closed source version as a reference when creating a FOSS version. I believe that the open source community would benefit massively from a 'virtual distro' which could appeal to the creative types normally excluded from the development process and provide a bridge between usability and code. It would also apply the 'many eyes' theory to UI design and provide an alternate place for developers to get ideas from. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions (was Re: next meeting)
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 14:15 -0800, Dylan McCall wrote: I am toying with a button-looking container with some toggle buttons within for each process. The one you see here is really just an ugly hack (and a mockup, obviously), but it shows the idea: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2454/screenshotmainpyoq9.png The icon on the left is for the process, while the other two text labels are its open windows. Icons for individual windows are sadly not happening... something creative will have to be done. Ooh! I vote for this. -- Greg -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Intuitive application lister and other loopy discussions ( was Re: next meeting)
Ooh! I vote for this. vote? sorry but I think you misunderstood this whole process. No—I know this isn't a democracy. I wasn't expecting an actual vote that would count for anything; I was just succinctly expressing my support for this idea. -- Greg K Nicholson -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
