Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On 04/07/2010 06:22 AM, Jonathan Blackhall wrote: [..] Another issue is with Rhythmbox. This is especially true for newer users. Let's say I just click the 'X' to quit, just like I do with Firefox or Calculator. I don't notice that the icon is still present in the Notification Area. It's not doing any particular harm there right now. However, then I shut down my computer and come back the next day. I open Rhythmbox, and it starts minimized to the Notification Area. I'm sitting there waiting patiently for it to open, but it never does. Now you could argue that this is a bug in Rhythmbox (and it has been reported), but my point is that it highlights an underlying problem of an application not quitting when the user wants it to. [..] This is configurable: Edit|Plugins|Status Icon|Configure|Status icon: 'Visible with notifications' should give you what you want. When set to 'Owns the main window' clicking 'X' (close window) will close the window leave Rhythmbox (with panel icon) running. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
Mind-boggling: yes. Lunatic: not necessarily :) Yay! If I'm understanding you properly, the user should have no concept of services or processes. There is a single list of all applications, whether they are running with a window, running as a service, or not running at all. When the user clicks on an application which is not running, or running as a service, then the control window for that application opens on top. When all of an application's windows are closed, then the process closes (as long as no services are running). If a service is running as well, it is responsible for garbage-collecting itself when it is no longer doing anything (ie when rhythmbox is no longer playing music). When a service process exits like this, the UI shouldn't change at all - the user shouldn't even know. Indeed! I'm glad to know I made sense :) I think declaring a model for interaction with applications and windows, like this (or this, even; that would make _me_ happy at least) would go a long way since we really don't have one right now. I want to think of a window as a view. Now Close would mean disappear that view, Minimize means make that view really small and Maximize means make that view really big, and importantly that meaning should never, ever vary. The resource being viewed is just there. The only question I have right now about this model is the action which occurs when an app with a window already open is clicked on in the list. In the current windowing model, you can focus the existing window (via the task bar) or open a second window (via the menu). With the integrated application list, how do we nicely handle both of these use cases? Cheers, Evan This is something I think gnome-shell handles pretty well. If you click an application with open windows, it knows, so it focuses those windows on its own. Right clicking gives you an option to create a new window. (Personally, I would like a little + button to one corner of the icon so it isn't a secondary operation). As I understand it, upcoming stuff will make that kind of behaviour slightly adjustable per application. Existing applications use libunique, and I think it's an okay approach. So, right now if I have Rhythmbox running in the background and I want to choose a new playlist, I can head to Applications›Rhythmbox and the existing window is instantly focused. It's just like opening a fresh instance, as if Rhythmbox's main window really is in a different process from what plays the music (like the Telepathy stack). However, this particular job is a loopy mess under the hood! * Application sets up with DBus for the single purpose of watching for new instances trying to launch. * New instance of application is opened, sees the old one, does something. Hopefully it tells the existing instance that the user has declared interest in using it, but we never really know. * In the ideal case, the existing instance of the application either creates a new window in the current workspace (good!) or raises the old window. It's that latter case which breaks my heart: if you aren't in the same workspace as the old window, it never shows up. It sets the Urgent window hint and a tiny little item in the window list appears. Now, in the ideal case, the user journeys to the other side of his 37 screen, clicks that OTHER thing for no apparent reason, and finally sees his window... but he's sent to the wrong workspace! Gnome Shell makes that mess completely the window manager's responsibility (and the window manager is quite comfortable managing windows), so there is no likely point of failure. Not ideal, though, since it doesn't cover everything (at least not yet). Maybe we just really need a more reliable way for applications to control their own windows. (Sorry, I just realized I've been throwing around the words application, process and resource almost interchangeably. Hopefully this isn't completely nonsense at this point). Alas, there is still the issue that, if you had the Rhythmbox controller window open and focused somewhere and it pretends to open another by moving that old window to view, your old window is no longer where you left it… As for some apps supporting multiple views, err, windows, I think it makes sense: you can only have one view per _resource_, so for Abiword that resource is a single document and, if I recall correctly, it correctly enforces that policy. Most things do. Thankfully for us, it's just really hard for an application to manage multiple windows that refer to the same thing. And it (should be) pointless, too. Every time you choose Rhythmbox from the Applications menu, you're opening a controller for a single resource: the music service (which doesn't actually exist, but makes a fine imaginary construct). So, its behaviour of only allowing one controller is quite consistent! Oh, my tea is ready! Bye :) Dylan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Dylan McCall dylanmcc...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Jonathan Blackhall johnny.one@gmail.com wrote: It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close has since been minimized to my system try (or notification area or its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of quitting). Examples of programs with this behavior include Rhythmbox and Empathy in the default install. To me, the 'X' signifies closing and quitting the application. If I wanted to minimize it and keep it open, I would think to click the 'Minimize' button before clicking the 'X'. In fact, I'd argue that the only reason anyone thinks this is appropriate is because it's what's been done in the past. The reason I find this so frustrating is because in order for me to eXit an application, I have to go searching through menus (File-Quit) or know some fancy keyboard shortcuts (things that casual users never even think about). I can only assume that developers' theories behind this (which is definitely not a problem unique to Ubuntu) stem from them telling themselves that no one would actually want to Quit their application. What they *really* mean to do is close the window, but keep the application running silently. So I'll just save them the trouble of accidentally quitting by changing the function of that 'X' button. I just dislike the fact that it sends mixed signals. After all, if I click 'X' in Firefox or in gEdit or in a whole host of other applications, I'm quitting and completely closing it. Why must this be different in Rhythmbox? And also, when I install a new application, what is the 'X' going to do when I click it in this application? I'm not exactly sure what I'd propose to fix this problem. I really just think that the current way is broken. Maybe the function could be switched to the Minimize button, but that would likewise exhibit ambiguity, although I'd argue less so than the current incarnation. Maybe there should be a new window button, but that doesn't seem like a very elegant solution either. I thought about filing this as a bug, but then I thought it might be better to generate discussion amongst developers. What are your thoughts? Do you consider the current situation a problem? If so, what do you propose to fix it? Cheers, Jonathan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss I chewed on this thought for a bit, and I think adding a really close button to a window would compromise what is _potentially_ a pretty well thought out bit of UI. That's not to say it is well thought out yet, but I think it could be! Conventionally, a window represents some thing the user is doing, so closing it should close that thing. A toplevel window is almost always something the user has directly triggered and is directly, purposefully interacting with, and I don't think we have anything else in the desktop that fits that role. Therefore, if the act of closing a window is affecting anything more than what that window is representing, something has gone wrong and should be fixed. For most web browsers, we're fine; the close button closes the web page associated with that window, but the application, other web pages and any current downloads (should) keep running. The rest is naturally fed by the “Just Works” philosophy; if a process is not providing anything, it should become irrelevant (probably by exiting). Firefox does this for you all the time. A lot of developers think of it as a robotic all window are closed, so exit deal, but I think it's more we are no longer serving a purpose, so exit. Applications should track what they are doing for the user to decide whether they are wasting memory. Windows are remote controls for resources. In the case of Tomboy, that's a note. (When you close a window in Tomboy, you aren't destroying the note!). For Empathy, that's an instant messaging account (Telepathy). When you close the buddy list, it doesn't log you out, but you can open the buddy list and tell it to log you out. (In this case that's technically the case, too; Telepathy, Empathy, etc. are split into a whole pile of small, detached programs that run for different purposes). Rhythmbox is a different example, but let's try to fit it under the same theory. It already mostly does. The Rhythmbox main window is for controlling what music the Rhythmbox service (represented by its indicator icon) is playing. It just happens that the Rhythmbox service is, technically, the same process as the Rhythmbox main window. Users don't care about that, though. Someone opens Rhythmbox to control the playing music (to pause it or play it), then closes it when that is done and the
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
Evan wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Dylan McCall dylanmcc...@gmail.com wrote: I chewed on this thought for a bit, and I think adding a really close button to a window would compromise what is _potentially_ a pretty well thought out bit of UI. That's not to say it is well thought out yet, but I think it could be! Conventionally, a window represents some thing the user is doing, so closing it should close that thing. A toplevel window is almost always something the user has directly triggered and is directly, purposefully interacting with, and I don't think we have anything else in the desktop that fits that role. Therefore, if the act of closing a window is affecting anything more than what that window is representing, something has gone wrong and should be fixed. For most web browsers, we're fine; the close button closes the web page associated with that window, but the application, other web pages and any current downloads (should) keep running. The rest is naturally fed by the “Just Works” philosophy; if a process is not providing anything, it should become irrelevant (probably by exiting). Firefox does this for you all the time. A lot of developers think of it as a robotic all window are closed, so exit deal, but I think it's more we are no longer serving a purpose, so exit. Applications should track what they are doing for the user to decide whether they are wasting memory. Windows are remote controls for resources. In the case of Tomboy, that's a note. (When you close a window in Tomboy, you aren't destroying the note!). For Empathy, that's an instant messaging account (Telepathy). When you close the buddy list, it doesn't log you out, but you can open the buddy list and tell it to log you out. (In this case that's technically the case, too; Telepathy, Empathy, etc. are split into a whole pile of small, detached programs that run for different purposes). Rhythmbox is a different example, but let's try to fit it under the same theory. It already mostly does. The Rhythmbox main window is for controlling what music the Rhythmbox service (represented by its indicator icon) is playing. It just happens that the Rhythmbox service is, technically, the same process as the Rhythmbox main window. Users don't care about that, though. Someone opens Rhythmbox to control the playing music (to pause it or play it), then closes it when that is done and the service goes on in the background. If the music is stopped and Rhythmbox's controller is closed, Rhythmbox has no reason to continue running, so the process should exit. That should have absolutely no impact on the surrounding user interface, however. The Problem: that does have a strange impact on the surrounding user interface. Particularly strange for Rhythmbox, since the indicator serves as a launcher for the controller. Unless we want that Rhythmbox indicator to be permanent, it always will create a bizarrely shape-shifting desktop within the current design. It always will with a really close button, too, because really closing the window will kill the Rhythmbox service and, therefore, the indicator applet. Consider the inconsistency at hand from a lower level: killing the Rhythmbox process kills its indicator, its controller, and the music. Killing the Empathy process kills the buddy list but maintains your accounts as they are and the message indicator. Killing Evolution does not delete your email (unless you were having a good day; it gets jealous). Good news, in my books: gnome-shell has launchers and running applications in the same place ;) That is a more profound improvement than mere cosmetics. It means things don't move unexpectedly. Personally, I want to be able to reliably head to wherever I start applications and open my Buddy List, unconcerned with whether a process called empathy was already running, and I want to do that as quickly as heading to the message indicator and opening my Buddy List from it. I want to do that because the same functionality fits for anything, not just instant messaging; from notes to music to calendars and todo lists. We can either have a specialized launcher in the top panel for every single type of desktop service, or we can have a smarter application launcher. PS: Granted, my chewing on this was in the midst of a billion things happening at once, so I realize I may be coming across as a complete lunatic. Mind-boggling: yes. Lunatic: not necessarily :) If I'm understanding you properly, the user should have no concept of services or processes. There is a single list of all applications, whether they are running with a window, running as a service, or not running at all. When the user clicks on an application which is not running, or running as a service, then the control window for that application opens on top. When all of an application's windows are closed, then the process closes (as long as no services are
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
Brandon Kuczenski wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: John McCabe-Dansted wrote: Maybe. But the paradigm isn't really that pressing the Close button minimizes the window to the systray. I beg to differ. Think as a user, not a developer. I submit that _users_ do not generally understand a difference between minimizing to the tray or the task bar - except that they know something minimized to the task bar is taking up more space. The paradigm is that closing a window closes that window *and* that closing a window never closes a service. Again, I disagree. Users think close and don't stop to think... I think most people would be confused if e.g. clicking close on the main sound preferences dialog stopped the sound server. ...what closing a sound server means. I think most people are confused by _any_ change to their system. [I'm confused by the fact that Firefox now has the ability to hang my entire machine, which it only started to do with the last upgrade] Yes, making the close button shut down a server and the minimize button minimize to either the task bar or the system tray _would_ be initially confusing but imo is more logical, and would be more intuitive. I think it's unwise to try to imagine a 'typical' user. I thought that was my point. We shouldn't be imagining, we should actually be trying to figure out who the typical user is. There are [apparently] a great many people who like the way mac handles the desktop environment- I have never been able to fathom it, but that's why I don't use it. (among other reasons :P ) Mac users and Windows users coming to Ubuntu will expect different things- but Ubuntu is something else entirely I couldn't care less who Mac, Windows and Ubuntu users are - I just wish people were designing to some UI standard, and would hope that we had some analysis that would suggest a good direction for that standard. Instead, we have people designing any old UI that works for them, with human issues largely ignored. That way lies slavish imitation, not innovation. Whatever you think of the Mac interface (I can't fathom it either), it exists because Apple _knows_ that it works for a large number of people. -- derek -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Derek Broughton de...@pointerstop.ca wrote: Evan wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Dylan McCall dylanmcc...@gmail.com wrote: I chewed on this thought for a bit, and I think adding a really close button to a window would compromise what is _potentially_ a pretty well thought out bit of UI. That's not to say it is well thought out yet, but I think it could be! Conventionally, a window represents some thing the user is doing, so closing it should close that thing. A toplevel window is almost always something the user has directly triggered and is directly, purposefully interacting with, and I don't think we have anything else in the desktop that fits that role. Therefore, if the act of closing a window is affecting anything more than what that window is representing, something has gone wrong and should be fixed. For most web browsers, we're fine; the close button closes the web page associated with that window, but the application, other web pages and any current downloads (should) keep running. The rest is naturally fed by the “Just Works” philosophy; if a process is not providing anything, it should become irrelevant (probably by exiting). Firefox does this for you all the time. A lot of developers think of it as a robotic all window are closed, so exit deal, but I think it's more we are no longer serving a purpose, so exit. Applications should track what they are doing for the user to decide whether they are wasting memory. Windows are remote controls for resources. In the case of Tomboy, that's a note. (When you close a window in Tomboy, you aren't destroying the note!). For Empathy, that's an instant messaging account (Telepathy). When you close the buddy list, it doesn't log you out, but you can open the buddy list and tell it to log you out. (In this case that's technically the case, too; Telepathy, Empathy, etc. are split into a whole pile of small, detached programs that run for different purposes). Rhythmbox is a different example, but let's try to fit it under the same theory. It already mostly does. The Rhythmbox main window is for controlling what music the Rhythmbox service (represented by its indicator icon) is playing. It just happens that the Rhythmbox service is, technically, the same process as the Rhythmbox main window. Users don't care about that, though. Someone opens Rhythmbox to control the playing music (to pause it or play it), then closes it when that is done and the service goes on in the background. If the music is stopped and Rhythmbox's controller is closed, Rhythmbox has no reason to continue running, so the process should exit. That should have absolutely no impact on the surrounding user interface, however. The Problem: that does have a strange impact on the surrounding user interface. Particularly strange for Rhythmbox, since the indicator serves as a launcher for the controller. Unless we want that Rhythmbox indicator to be permanent, it always will create a bizarrely shape-shifting desktop within the current design. It always will with a really close button, too, because really closing the window will kill the Rhythmbox service and, therefore, the indicator applet. Consider the inconsistency at hand from a lower level: killing the Rhythmbox process kills its indicator, its controller, and the music. Killing the Empathy process kills the buddy list but maintains your accounts as they are and the message indicator. Killing Evolution does not delete your email (unless you were having a good day; it gets jealous). Good news, in my books: gnome-shell has launchers and running applications in the same place ;) That is a more profound improvement than mere cosmetics. It means things don't move unexpectedly. Personally, I want to be able to reliably head to wherever I start applications and open my Buddy List, unconcerned with whether a process called empathy was already running, and I want to do that as quickly as heading to the message indicator and opening my Buddy List from it. I want to do that because the same functionality fits for anything, not just instant messaging; from notes to music to calendars and todo lists. We can either have a specialized launcher in the top panel for every single type of desktop service, or we can have a smarter application launcher. PS: Granted, my chewing on this was in the midst of a billion things happening at once, so I realize I may be coming across as a complete lunatic. Mind-boggling: yes. Lunatic: not necessarily :) If I'm understanding you properly, the user should have no concept of services or processes. There is a single list of all applications, whether they are running with a window, running as a service, or not running at all. When the user clicks on an application which is not running, or running as a service, then the control window for that application opens on top. When all of an application's
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Derek Broughton de...@pointerstop.ca wrote: Neither do I - but for, apparently, opposite reasons. I don't understand why we need, or even want, minimize to tray and minimize to task bar (aargh, please don't push _my_ buttons, and write minimise :-) ) Sorry to be the spelling Nazi here, but if anyone's buttons are to be pushed by the difference in UK and US spelling, it should perhaps be the founders of the English language, not the ones who choose to drop vowels and replace consonants at whim. Americans have already won the spelling war in HTML, be happy with that. I'll continue to spell correctly whenever I can though (typos withstanding, of course!) :| /rant -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
Derek Broughton wrote: John McCabe-Dansted wrote: Maybe. But the paradigm isn't really that pressing the Close button minimizes the window to the systray. I beg to differ. Think as a user, not a developer. I submit that _users_ do not generally understand a difference between minimizing to the tray or the task bar - except that they know something minimized to the task bar is taking up more space. The paradigm is that closing a window closes that window *and* that closing a window never closes a service. Again, I disagree. Users think close and don't stop to think... I think most people would be confused if e.g. clicking close on the main sound preferences dialog stopped the sound server. ...what closing a sound server means. I think most people are confused by _any_ change to their system. [I'm confused by the fact that Firefox now has the ability to hang my entire machine, which it only started to do with the last upgrade] Yes, making the close button shut down a server and the minimize button minimize to either the task bar or the system tray _would_ be initially confusing but imo is more logical, and would be more intuitive. I think it's unwise to try to imagine a 'typical' user. There are [apparently] a great many people who like the way mac handles the desktop environment- I have never been able to fathom it, but that's why I don't use it. (among other reasons :P ) Mac users and Windows users coming to Ubuntu will expect different things- but Ubuntu is something else entirely and shouldn't aspire to the whims of thoughtless windows and mac users. A 'thoughtful' ubuntu user will quickly realize that some programs don't exit when you close the window. There's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes the change should happen on the other side of the display. For my part, I find the argument that the close button on a window closes the window compelling. By the same token, minimize should minimize to the panel, where it can later be restored, remembering its position and size and other window-related things. these are window controls. Minimize to tray, where the window seems to disappear, breaks the windowing metaphor. As for the question of how to deal with applications that persist as services, it seems like it's a quarrel with the application and not with the desktop environment.Maybe they need to notify the user more clearly that they continue to run-- maybe the icons in the notification area can bounce up and down when their windows are closed :) (unless it infringes on a patent). Better, the user should be notified when the program *starts* that a service has been started as well. If it is controversial, as it seems to be with rhythmbox, it should be a preference setting. But don't change the law to fight a parking ticket. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Jonathan Blackhall johnny.one@gmail.com wrote: It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close has since been minimized to my system try (or notification area or its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of quitting). Examples of programs with this behavior include Rhythmbox and Empathy in the default install. To me, the 'X' signifies closing and quitting the application. If I wanted to minimize it and keep it open, I would think to click the 'Minimize' button before clicking the 'X'. In fact, I'd argue that the only reason anyone thinks this is appropriate is because it's what's been done in the past. The reason I find this so frustrating is because in order for me to eXit an application, I have to go searching through menus (File-Quit) or know some fancy keyboard shortcuts (things that casual users never even think about). I can only assume that developers' theories behind this (which is definitely not a problem unique to Ubuntu) stem from them telling themselves that no one would actually want to Quit their application. What they *really* mean to do is close the window, but keep the application running silently. So I'll just save them the trouble of accidentally quitting by changing the function of that 'X' button. I just dislike the fact that it sends mixed signals. After all, if I click 'X' in Firefox or in gEdit or in a whole host of other applications, I'm quitting and completely closing it. Why must this be different in Rhythmbox? And also, when I install a new application, what is the 'X' going to do when I click it in this application? I'm not exactly sure what I'd propose to fix this problem. I really just think that the current way is broken. Maybe the function could be switched to the Minimize button, but that would likewise exhibit ambiguity, although I'd argue less so than the current incarnation. Maybe there should be a new window button, but that doesn't seem like a very elegant solution either. I thought about filing this as a bug, but then I thought it might be better to generate discussion amongst developers. What are your thoughts? Do you consider the current situation a problem? If so, what do you propose to fix it? Cheers, Jonathan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss I chewed on this thought for a bit, and I think adding a really close button to a window would compromise what is _potentially_ a pretty well thought out bit of UI. That's not to say it is well thought out yet, but I think it could be! Conventionally, a window represents some thing the user is doing, so closing it should close that thing. A toplevel window is almost always something the user has directly triggered and is directly, purposefully interacting with, and I don't think we have anything else in the desktop that fits that role. Therefore, if the act of closing a window is affecting anything more than what that window is representing, something has gone wrong and should be fixed. For most web browsers, we're fine; the close button closes the web page associated with that window, but the application, other web pages and any current downloads (should) keep running. The rest is naturally fed by the “Just Works” philosophy; if a process is not providing anything, it should become irrelevant (probably by exiting). Firefox does this for you all the time. A lot of developers think of it as a robotic all window are closed, so exit deal, but I think it's more we are no longer serving a purpose, so exit. Applications should track what they are doing for the user to decide whether they are wasting memory. Windows are remote controls for resources. In the case of Tomboy, that's a note. (When you close a window in Tomboy, you aren't destroying the note!). For Empathy, that's an instant messaging account (Telepathy). When you close the buddy list, it doesn't log you out, but you can open the buddy list and tell it to log you out. (In this case that's technically the case, too; Telepathy, Empathy, etc. are split into a whole pile of small, detached programs that run for different purposes). Rhythmbox is a different example, but let's try to fit it under the same theory. It already mostly does. The Rhythmbox main window is for controlling what music the Rhythmbox service (represented by its indicator icon) is playing. It just happens that the Rhythmbox service is, technically, the same process as the Rhythmbox main window. Users don't care about that, though. Someone opens Rhythmbox to control the playing music (to pause it or play it), then closes it when that is done and the service goes on in the background. If the music is stopped and Rhythmbox's controller is closed, Rhythmbox has no
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Jonathan Blackhall johnny.one@gmail.com wrote: I like the new button idea. It could be only on applications that could be minimized to the tray. The button has actually been discussed previously: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/124326 I actually don't think the new button is a particularly elegant or ideal solution, but it also wouldn't be terrible. I just wish there was a way to build a solution into the current workflow without needing to add an additional button to confuse people. Maybe it could be made more obvious by changing the colour of the button. For example, red (current) if the button will close the application, and orange if it will only close the window and leave the app running in the notification area. Maybe you want to put this problem/solution ideas on the brainstorm website. Then people can vote what solution they like best. I'd rather start the discussion here. You're free to submit the idea and propose a solution there, though. Cheers, Jonathan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 21:05 -0700, Akkana Peck wrote: Jonathan Blackhall writes: It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close has since been minimized to my system try (or notification area or its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of quitting). I hit that recently with gwibber. Thought maybe it could be a good alternative to the difficult Facebook website ... but then I quit it, or at least told it to quit, and later found random gwibber windows popping up. The result was that it taught me not to use gwibber for anything, because running it even to try it out means a hassle later when I have to run ps to find it and kill it. At least Gwibber gives you the choice: just go to Gwibber - Preferences and you can check / uncheck Minimise to tray on close. Bruno -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
Jonathan Blackhall johnny.one@gmail.com writes: It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close has since been minimized to my system try (or notification area or its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of quitting). Examples of programs with this behavior include Rhythmbox and Empathy in the default install. To me, the 'X' signifies closing and quitting the application. As far as I know it has always been Close this window. I can only assume that developers' theories behind this (which is definitely not a problem unique to Ubuntu) stem from them telling themselves that no one would actually want to Quit their application. What they *really* mean to do is close the window, but keep the application running silently. So I'll just save them the trouble of accidentally quitting by changing the function of that 'X' button. I just dislike the fact that it sends mixed signals. After all, if I click 'X' in Firefox or in gEdit or in a whole host of other applications, I'm quitting and completely closing it. In Firefox and gEdit clicking the X means Close this windows, not Quit this app - just try it with multiple windows open. Why must this be different in Rhythmbox? Think about Rhythmbox as some kind of service running in the background. The window is just a user interface for that service that you can close if you don't need it, without stopping the service. Florian -- Simple dict-like Python API for GConf: http://www.florian-diesch.de/software/easygconf/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
Hi Jonathan, *, Jonathan Blackhall schrieb: It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close has since been minimized to my system try (or notification area or its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of quitting). [..] I can only assume that developers' theories behind this (which is definitely not a problem unique to Ubuntu) stem from them telling themselves that no one would actually want to Quit their application. What they *really* mean to do is close the window, but keep the application running silently. So I'll just save them the trouble of accidentally quitting by changing the function of that 'X' button. I just dislike the fact that it sends mixed signals. I agree with You here: Even if it might be a good Idea to assume some user intention it is *always* a bad idea to realize that by *cheating*. [..] I'm not exactly sure what I'd propose to fix this problem. I really just think that the current way is broken. A simple and clear solution might be to hide the X button where developer thinks closing is not intended by hitting it, and put a possibility for that into the userinterface of the app. Additionaly putting a dock to systray item in the context menu of the window bar might not harm at all. :o)) Maybe the function could be switched to the Minimize button, but that would likewise exhibit ambiguity, although I'd argue less so than the current incarnation. A less evel result in my eyes isn't worth thinking about.. :o)) Maybe there should be a new window button, but that doesn't seem like a very elegant solution either. One more less evel.. . I think Window behavior management by window bar symbols should be kept simple. [..] What are your thoughts? Do you consider the current situation a problem? I do. If so, what do you propose to fix it? As You do, I prefer the straight way: steal the button, if you don't want it to be used! better: Let the user experience herself if closing was not the intended thing and give a short way to achieve it. I hate to be spoon-fed in any way. So I'd vote for the latter. If I remember that windows with deactivated sizing, showing a list of items to select - each shortened and beginning with the same term.. my 0.02 EUR :o)) -- Friedrich Schöne Grüße von der Sonnenalb -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
Why must this be different in Rhythmbox? Think about Rhythmbox as some kind of service running in the background. The window is just a user interface for that service that you can close if you don't need it, without stopping the service. Ok, I'll give you that it technically means 'close' the window. My issue still stands, however. On most applications, closing a single window is synonymous with quitting the application. My frustration comes when this doesn't happen. Closing my last Firefox window doesn't leave it running in the notification area as a service. I understand in theory why keeping Rhythmbox open and running as a service is useful. In practice, however, I should be able to fully quit any application (at least when there's only a single open window) by clicking a single button. None of this File-Quit business. (Being able to quit an application with a single button even with multiple windows open is an interesting idea.) Again, it's frustrating when a button behaves one way for some applications and not others. And it's frustrating not being able to quit an application with a single button click. The current behavior can cause a number of problems. As other users pointed out (and I have also experienced), sometimes you want to quit an application, such as Empathy or Gwibber, only later to find yourself still logged in, online, and maybe receiving messages. Another issue is with Rhythmbox. This is especially true for newer users. Let's say I just click the 'X' to quit, just like I do with Firefox or Calculator. I don't notice that the icon is still present in the Notification Area. It's not doing any particular harm there right now. However, then I shut down my computer and come back the next day. I open Rhythmbox, and it starts minimized to the Notification Area. I'm sitting there waiting patiently for it to open, but it never does. Now you could argue that this is a bug in Rhythmbox (and it has been reported), but my point is that it highlights an underlying problem of an application not quitting when the user wants it to. Just for reference, I have a problem with this bug almost daily, and I can't seem to teach myself to remember File-Quit to close certain applications but not others. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Blackhall johnny.one@gmail.com wrote: Why must this be different in Rhythmbox? Think about Rhythmbox as some kind of service running in the background. The window is just a user interface for that service that you can close if you don't need it, without stopping the service. Ok, I'll give you that it technically means 'close' the window. My issue still stands, however. On most applications, closing a single window is synonymous with quitting the application. My frustration comes when this doesn't happen. Closing my last Firefox window doesn't leave it running in the notification area as a service. I understand in theory why keeping Rhythmbox open and running as a service is useful. In practice, however, I should be able to fully quit any application (at least when there's only a single open window) by clicking a single button. None of this File-Quit business. (Being able to quit an application with a single button even with multiple windows open is an interesting idea.) Again, it's frustrating when a button behaves one way for some applications and not others. And it's frustrating not being able to quit an application with a single button click. The current behavior can cause a number of problems. As other users pointed out (and I have also experienced), sometimes you want to quit an application, such as Empathy or Gwibber, only later to find yourself still logged in, online, and maybe receiving messages. Another issue is with Rhythmbox. This is especially true for newer users. Let's say I just click the 'X' to quit, just like I do with Firefox or Calculator. I don't notice that the icon is still present in the Notification Area. It's not doing any particular harm there right now. However, then I shut down my computer and come back the next day. I open Rhythmbox, and it starts minimized to the Notification Area. I'm sitting there waiting patiently for it to open, but it never does. Now you could argue that this is a bug in Rhythmbox (and it has been reported), but my point is that it highlights an underlying problem of an application not quitting when the user wants it to. Just for reference, I have a problem with this bug almost daily, and I can't seem to teach myself to remember File-Quit to close certain applications but not others. For the record, the keyboard shortcuts are much less ambiguous and much more consistent... Ctrl-Q: Quit the application Alt-Space-C: Close the window Since I use my keyboard for almost everything I have never run into the problem you describe in any serious way. It does sound like a usability issue though. Just my 2 cents, Evan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
For what my input is worth, I'd just like to point out that I'm one of those people who is annoyed when an app which runs in the systray *exits* when I close the interface window (main or otherwise). For apps that support the minimise to tray functionality instead of closing the window minimises to tray idea, I find it particularly difficult to re-train myself to minimise instead of close. To me, minimise means minimise to the task bar. Personally, I don't think that an extra button in the title-bar would cut the mustard either. Seems that the only viable option that I can see is to handle both preferences (far be it for me to force *my* preferences on another person) -- perhaps the solution is a global preference for this kind of thing so that neither I nor the OP have to configure multiple tray-aware apps to bend to our personal preference. This option could perhaps be a checkbox in the Window Preferences settings dialog available from System-Preferences-Windows Of course, getting tray-aware apps to honor this setting is a whole other bowl of pudding entirely. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids clever tricks like the plague. - Djikstra. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
Davyd McColl wrote: For what my input is worth, I'd just like to point out that I'm one of those people who is annoyed when an app which runs in the systray *exits* when I close the interface window (main or otherwise). For apps that support the minimise to tray functionality instead of closing the window minimises to tray idea, I find it particularly difficult to re-train myself to minimise instead of close. To me, minimise means minimise to the task bar. Personally, I don't think that an extra button in the title-bar would cut the mustard either. Neither do I - but for, apparently, opposite reasons. I don't understand why we need, or even want, minimize to tray and minimize to task bar (aargh, please don't push _my_ buttons, and write minimise :-) ) Surely an app should minimize to one or the other, in which case Close could close. -- derek -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Derek Broughton de...@pointerstop.cawrote: Neither do I - but for, apparently, opposite reasons. I don't understand why we need, or even want, minimize to tray and minimize to task bar (aargh, please don't push _my_ buttons, and write minimise :-) ) OK. Both are correct. Surely an app should minimize to one or the other, in which case Close could close. Maybe. But the paradigm isn't really that pressing the Close button minimizes the window to the systray. The paradigm is that closing a window closes that window *and* that closing a window never closes a service. I think most people would be confused if e.g. clicking close on the main sound preferences dialog stopped the sound server. Arguably, the fact that you can get the window back via the systray doesn't mean that the *window* has been minimized to the systray any more than saying that we minimize a document window to the My Documents folder. I think nobody expects the X button to close services that were started on start-up. So AFAICT the debate has more to do with the question: 1) If we launch a systray service the same way we launch an application: a) should we also shut down the service the same way we would shut down an application?; or b) should we shut down the service we would shut down other services found in the systray? Or, another question under debate: 2) Should closing a window *ever* close a service found in the systray? These are related, but note for example that we could specify that applications should never put an icon in the systray unless the user explicitly asks them to register themselves as a service, so we could answer yes to both 1a and 2. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Thoughts on quitting and window controls
It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close has since been minimized to my system try (or notification area or its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of quitting). Examples of programs with this behavior include Rhythmbox and Empathy in the default install. To me, the 'X' signifies closing and quitting the application. If I wanted to minimize it and keep it open, I would think to click the 'Minimize' button before clicking the 'X'. In fact, I'd argue that the only reason anyone thinks this is appropriate is because it's what's been done in the past. The reason I find this so frustrating is because in order for me to eXit an application, I have to go searching through menus (File-Quit) or know some fancy keyboard shortcuts (things that casual users never even think about). I can only assume that developers' theories behind this (which is definitely not a problem unique to Ubuntu) stem from them telling themselves that no one would actually want to Quit their application. What they *really* mean to do is close the window, but keep the application running silently. So I'll just save them the trouble of accidentally quitting by changing the function of that 'X' button. I just dislike the fact that it sends mixed signals. After all, if I click 'X' in Firefox or in gEdit or in a whole host of other applications, I'm quitting and completely closing it. Why must this be different in Rhythmbox? And also, when I install a new application, what is the 'X' going to do when I click it in this application? I'm not exactly sure what I'd propose to fix this problem. I really just think that the current way is broken. Maybe the function could be switched to the Minimize button, but that would likewise exhibit ambiguity, although I'd argue less so than the current incarnation. Maybe there should be a new window button, but that doesn't seem like a very elegant solution either. I thought about filing this as a bug, but then I thought it might be better to generate discussion amongst developers. What are your thoughts? Do you consider the current situation a problem? If so, what do you propose to fix it? Cheers, Jonathan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 20:39, Jonathan Blackhall johnny.one@gmail.com wrote: It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close has since been minimized to my system try (or notification area or its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of quitting). Examples of programs with this behavior include Rhythmbox and Empathy in the default install. To me, the 'X' signifies closing and quitting the application. If I wanted to minimize it and keep it open, I would think to click the 'Minimize' button before clicking the 'X'. In fact, I'd argue that the only reason anyone thinks this is appropriate is because it's what's been done in the past. The reason I find this so frustrating is because in order for me to eXit an application, I have to go searching through menus (File-Quit) or know some fancy keyboard shortcuts (things that casual users never even think about). I can only assume that developers' theories behind this (which is definitely not a problem unique to Ubuntu) stem from them telling themselves that no one would actually want to Quit their application. What they *really* mean to do is close the window, but keep the application running silently. So I'll just save them the trouble of accidentally quitting by changing the function of that 'X' button. I just dislike the fact that it sends mixed signals. After all, if I click 'X' in Firefox or in gEdit or in a whole host of other applications, I'm quitting and completely closing it. Why must this be different in Rhythmbox? And also, when I install a new application, what is the 'X' going to do when I click it in this application? I'm not exactly sure what I'd propose to fix this problem. I really just think that the current way is broken. Maybe the function could be switched to the Minimize button, but that would likewise exhibit ambiguity, although I'd argue less so than the current incarnation. Maybe there should be a new window button, but that doesn't seem like a very elegant solution either. I thought about filing this as a bug, but then I thought it might be better to generate discussion amongst developers. What are your thoughts? Do you consider the current situation a problem? If so, what do you propose to fix it? Cheers, Jonathan I like the new button idea. It could be only on applications that could be minimized to the tray. Maybe you want to put this problem/solution ideas on the brainstorm website. Then people can vote what solution they like best. We could also add deluge to the list of applications that do this. Thanks, Erik -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
Jonathan Blackhall writes: It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close has since been minimized to my system try (or notification area or its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of quitting). I hit that recently with gwibber. Thought maybe it could be a good alternative to the difficult Facebook website ... but then I quit it, or at least told it to quit, and later found random gwibber windows popping up. The result was that it taught me not to use gwibber for anything, because running it even to try it out means a hassle later when I have to run ps to find it and kill it. ...Akkana -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Thoughts on quitting and window controls
I like the new button idea. It could be only on applications that could be minimized to the tray. The button has actually been discussed previously: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/124326 I actually don't think the new button is a particularly elegant or ideal solution, but it also wouldn't be terrible. I just wish there was a way to build a solution into the current workflow without needing to add an additional button to confuse people. Maybe you want to put this problem/solution ideas on the brainstorm website. Then people can vote what solution they like best. I'd rather start the discussion here. You're free to submit the idea and propose a solution there, though. Cheers, Jonathan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
