Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Aha! And this is the nature of the bug as I see it. I do not HAVE a
> message of any kind, but I still have the e-mail icon. Please switch to
> some other icon when there ARE NO MESSAGES, and I'll be satisfied.
>
I agree, there should be no icon if it serves no use.
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 20:07 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Aha! And this is the nature of the bug as I see it. I do not HAVE a
> > message of any kind, but I still have the e-mail icon. Please switch to
> > some other icon when there ARE NO MESSAGES, and I'll be sat
Ted Gould wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 20:07 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>
>>> Aha! And this is the nature of the bug as I see it. I do not HAVE a
>>> message of any kind, but I still have the e-mail icon. Please switch to
>>> some other icon when there
David Barth wrote:
> Ted Gould wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 20:07 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>>
>>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>
Aha! And this is the nature of the bug as I see it. I do not HAVE a
message of any kind, but I still have the e-mail icon. Please switch to
>>>
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:15 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> There is no need for a Preferences for the Messaging Menu, and this
> use case does not justify the creation of one.
We have specified a preference dialog for the messaging menu. The
reason is for blacklisting applications.
Originally
On Aug 25, 2009, at 8:44AM , Ted Gould wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:15 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
There is no need for a Preferences for the Messaging Menu, and this
use case does not justify the creation of one.
We have specified a preference dialog for the messaging menu. The
reas
On Aug 25, 2009, at 8:44AM , Ted Gould wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:15 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
There is no need for a Preferences for the Messaging Menu, and this
use case does not justify the creation of one.
We have specified a preference dialog for the messaging menu. The
reas
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:06 -0500, David Siegel wrote:
> For a concrete example, consider Evolution. To remove the Evolution
> launcher from the messaging menu, you'd have to launch Evolution and
> set up your email account before you can access Evolution's
> preferences and disable the laun
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 15:31 +0100, C. Cooke wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:14:45AM -0700, Rick Spencer wrote:
> > Assuming that users prefer to act directly on objects, would it not be
> > more direct to allow them to right click on the menu item to remove it?
> > This would be consistent with
On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:14AM , Rick Spencer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:06 -0500, David Siegel wrote:
For a concrete example, consider Evolution. To remove the Evolution
launcher from the messaging menu, you'd have to launch Evolution and
set up your email account before you can access Evol
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:15 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
> There is no need for a Preferences for the Messaging Menu, and this
> use case does not justify the creation of one. The messaging menu
> should be removed ONLY if there are NO applications configured to
> present themselves in there
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:14:45AM -0700, Rick Spencer wrote:
> Assuming that users prefer to act directly on objects, would it not be
> more direct to allow them to right click on the menu item to remove it?
> This would be consistent with how users remove the Evo launcher from the
> panel.
>
> C
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:20 -0500, David Siegel wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:14AM , Rick Spencer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:06 -0500, David Siegel wrote:
> >
> >> For a concrete example, consider Evolution. To remove the Evolution
> >> launcher from the messaging menu, you'd have to
On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:29AM , Rick Spencer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:20 -0500, David Siegel wrote:
On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:14AM , Rick Spencer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:06 -0500, David Siegel wrote:
For a concrete example, consider Evolution. To remove the Evolution
launcher from
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 10:38 -0500, David Siegel wrote:
> > True, but personally, I'd rather make the system work the way users
> > want
> > and expect it to, even if it requires deviating from the HIG.
> >
> > Cheers, Rick
>
> "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faste
This did not come off in the good natured way that I intended.
(stupid email and it's lack of body language and voice).
I seriously meant to convey that I defer to the design team's judgment
on this topic.
Cheers, Rick
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 08:44 -0700, Rick Spencer wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25
> Context menus on menus themselves is something generally avoided. I'm
> pretty sure it's a big no-no in the GNOME HIG as well, but I'd have to
> check.
>
> David
On the topic of the HIG, please do not call this "preferences" if it is
to control a single thing. There is no practical reason t
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 09:20 -0500, David Siegel wrote:
> Context menus on menus themselves is something generally avoided. I'm
> pretty sure it's a big no-no in the GNOME HIG as well, but I'd have to
> check.
>
> David
>
Context menus on menus make sense in certain locations.
For example: t
We won't ever ask anyone to right click on a menu. Ever.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More h
mac_v wrote:
> Context menus on menus make sense in certain locations.
> For example: the Applications menu , Even though the "Add this launcher
> to... " context menu is less frequent , its presence makes things more
> easier.
>
No, this is a good example of why having the Applications menu as
Ted Gould wrote:
> We have specified a preference dialog for the messaging menu. The
> reason is for blacklisting applications.
>
Please unspecify said preference dialog ;-)
Relevant apps installed by the user should put themselves in this menu.
For default apps which are not desired by the u
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 21:52 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> mac_v wrote:
> > Context menus on menus make sense in certain locations.
> > For example: the Applications menu , Even though the "Add this launcher
> > to... " context menu is less frequent , its presence makes things more
> > easier.
mac_v wrote:
> If drag-and-drop to start apps/drag-and-rearrange is available for all
> the menu items , then and only then will it be easier .
>
I agree - drag and drop are also not standard experiences for menus, so
using them in the launcher menu is a terrible idea.
Mark
signature.asc
Des
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:55:38 +0100 Mark Shuttleworth
wrote:
>For default apps which are not desired by the user, the preference to take
them out of the menu will be in the app. Best we pick those defaults well
And also best that these apps not require configuration prior to gaining
access to t
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 21:51 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
> We won't ever ask anyone to right click on a menu. Ever.
Verb menu or noun menu? It might be worth sorting out the two.
Martin,
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> And also best that these apps not require configuration prior to gaining
> access to the preference (e.g. the Evolution example given earlier).
> Requiring users to set up applications in order to not be bothered by them
> in the menu is not a usability win.
>
+1 and
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 08:44 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:15 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > There is no need for a Preferences for the Messaging Menu, and this
> > use case does not justify the creation of one.
>
> We have specified a preference dialog for the messaging m
27 matches
Mail list logo
