On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 12:55 +0200, Philipp Wendler wrote:
> But the point is, it behaves similarly for phone calls and for IM (the
> latter also lead to vibration and screen message).
>From my personal use of the phone, I don't see how this would be
desirable. For example, I routinely set the Blac
Hi,
Am 07.07.2010 10:43, schrieb Mark Shuttleworth:
> On 06/07/10 08:49, Philipp Wendler wrote:
>> Am 06.07.2010 08:41, schrieb Mark Shuttleworth:
>>
>>> Interesting questions. My gut feel would be:
>>>
>>> - incoming IM notifications would be suppressed
>>> - incoming calls would be displaye
On 06/07/10 08:49, Philipp Wendler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 06.07.2010 08:41, schrieb Mark Shuttleworth:
>
>> Interesting questions. My gut feel would be:
>>
>> - incoming IM notifications would be suppressed
>> - incoming calls would be displayed
>>
> Why the latter? When I put my cellphone i
Hi,
Am 06.07.2010 08:41, schrieb Mark Shuttleworth:
> Interesting questions. My gut feel would be:
>
> - incoming IM notifications would be suppressed
> - incoming calls would be displayed
Why the latter? When I put my cellphone in DND (or silence) mode,
nothing is signaled: no calls, no SMS,
On 06/07/10 02:09, Frederik Nnaji wrote:
> Or will it have effect for social communication also?
> How about incoming voice and video calls?
> Do Not Disturb should be a system-exlusive mode?
Interesting questions. My gut feel would be:
- incoming IM notifications would be suppressed
- incoming
Hi there ;)
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 15:14, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Do-not-disturb did come up in our latest review of thinking for 11.04
> design work, so please ask MPT for a pointer to the (placeholder) spec
> where it should emerge. I would guess it would be a me-menu-2.0 type
> spec name.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Shuttleworth wrote on 23/06/10 14:14:
>...
> Do-not-disturb did come up in our latest review of thinking for 11.04
> design work, so please ask MPT for a pointer to the (placeholder) spec
> where it should emerge. I would guess it would be a me-me
On 18/06/10 13:18, Frederik Nnaji wrote:
> On 2010-06-18, Vishnoo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 23:34 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/03/10 18:51, Jim Rorie wrote:
>>>
From a bigger picture frame of reference, I was mulling a global "do
no disturb" state.
On 2010-06-18, Vishnoo wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 23:34 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>> On 31/03/10 18:51, Jim Rorie wrote:
>> > From a bigger picture frame of reference, I was mulling a global "do
>> > no disturb" state. This would turn off desktop notifications and other
>> > intrusions.
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 23:34 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> On 31/03/10 18:51, Jim Rorie wrote:
> > From a bigger picture frame of reference, I was mulling a global "do
> > no disturb" state. This would turn off desktop notifications and other
> > intrusions.
>
> Do-Not-Disturb should *definitel
On 31/03/10 18:51, Jim Rorie wrote:
> From a bigger picture frame of reference, I was mulling a global "do
> no disturb" state. This would turn off desktop notifications and other
> intrusions.
Do-Not-Disturb should *definitely* be in the spec for 10.10. Please do
review them post-UDS and raise a
On 31/03/10 17:14, Remco wrote:
> Plus, I think we can simplify this interface. Is it really important
> to know which of those applications is running right now? What are the
> use cases for knowing which of the messaging applications is running?
This is one of the items that comes up often with
I think the busy state is a good one for this case, busy means "I'm working-
don't interrupt me unless it's urgent" so while you'd still be online via
empathy, there would be no notification it would just silently go into the
messaging menu until you are no longer busy and can receive the message
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:23 -0400, Alex Launi wrote:
>
> I'm sure I missed some cases, and empirical results will find places
> that need tweaking, but I think it's a decent start to a higher level
> of presence integration into the desktop
>From a bigger picture frame of reference, I was mullin
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Conscious User
wrote:
> There's an important difference, though: "the app is running" is info
> directed at *you*, while "you are available/busy/away/offline" is info
> directed at *the world*.
>
> That said, I do find the whole unification proposal by Remco qui
Le mercredi 31 mars 2010 à 12:31 -0400, Alex Launi a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Conscious User
> wrote:
> The problem is that everything you said above does not apply
> to
> anything other than IM, at least not for the moment. There's
> no
>
> There is one problem with the 'playing arrow', in that it conceptually
> only makes sense to play one thing at a time. An arrow gives me a
> strong impression of a single item that is selected and is going
> through some sequence right now. For example, in the Totem playlist an
> arrow means: "t
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 16:42, Conscious User wrote:
>
> Dani, though I agree that consistency is important, you should keep in
> mind that the two concepts involved here are semantically different. In
> the messaging menu the arrow means "running" while in the me menu the
> point means "selected"
Dani, though I agree that consistency is important, you should keep in
mind that the two concepts involved here are semantically different. In
the messaging menu the arrow means "running" while in the me menu the
point means "selected".
The most important difference between the two is that *more
19 matches
Mail list logo
