On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:50:40 +0200, David Prieto
wrote:
> > But I still think that minimization should be kept because I'm 100%
> > sure that at least some applications will never evolve the way we
> > expect them to (split into a daemon and a UI), or it might take
> > years.
>
> They certainly
2011/6/20 Adam Williamson
> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 19:27 -0300, Job wrote:
> >
> > Very easy. why I never know this so simple and intuitive interface.
> > (Shitf-Ctrl-Alt-Down)
> > Very easy for who have liabilities. Or how need to use use one hand
> > while hold mobile.
>
> You can do it with one
David, let me set the tone to my reply to you by stating that I
appreciate your well thought out responses Keep that in mind while
you read my responses (since I make no attempt at responding using
tact I do, however, make a point to not be rude). You wander into my
neck of the woods, l
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 19:27 -0300, Job wrote:
>
> Very easy. why I never know this so simple and intuitive interface.
> (Shitf-Ctrl-Alt-Down)
> Very easy for who have liabilities. Or how need to use use one hand
> while hold mobile.
You can do it with one hand, I just tested. It's not ter
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 13:21 -0400, Jesse Hutton wrote:
> My main point of contention with that rational is that not all windows
> are part of any particular task for a user. Would a music player be
> part of a specific task? What about an instant messenger or IRC
> client? Even for email, I can ea
2011/6/20 Adam Tauno Williams
> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 15:17 +0100, Simon Booth wrote:
> > >Client walks into your office whilst you have confidential information
> > >relating to another client on screen?
> > > Why is moving to an empty workspace not an option?
> > That simply had not occurred to
Il giorno lun, 20/06/2011 alle 19.46 +0200, Florian Müllner ha scritto:
> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 18:15 +0200, Giovanni Campagna wrote:
> > Again, a workspace for background, long running apps is the 3.0
> > workaround. For 3.2, a better solution is being developed (minimization
> > to dash AppIcon)
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 15:14 +0100, Martin Häsler wrote:
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:47:32 -0400
> > From: David Prieto
> > To: Simon Booth
> > Cc: gnome-shell-list@gnome.org
> > Subject: Re: My opinions on Gnome Shell
> > Messag
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 18:15 +0200, Giovanni Campagna wrote:
> Again, a workspace for background, long running apps is the 3.0
> workaround. For 3.2, a better solution is being developed (minimization
> to dash AppIcon)
Is that a reference to
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651569 ? The
Giovanni,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it and I know that
following and participating in these threads is often distracting and no
conducive to getting real work done.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Giovanni Campagna <
scampa.giova...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il giorno lun,
Il giorno lun, 20/06/2011 alle 10.20 -0400, Jesse Hutton ha scritto:
> It's a little puzzling to me why GNOME Shell has deprecated window
> minimization, given that one of its primary design goals is to enable
> "distraction-free computing."
>
>
> The purpose of minimizing a window is precisely
Simon,
The crux, to me, is "hiding" rather than getting hung up on terminology like
> minimizing.
>
True. But it was the OP who said that "window management is atrocious", no
less, because "there is no minimize button". I can hide my windows just
fine.
> But currently, workspace switching to h
>
>
>> Well, I was talking about Gnome 2. About how minimization used to give my
> mom hell, and how after minimizing she would press the launcher again,
> expecting to get her previous window back.
>
>
>> Absolutely not. I would do it for Banshee, Rhythmbox, Transmission,
>> Evolution and Empathy.
On 20/06/11 15:50, David Prieto wrote:
> My point exactly. We've been minimizing for so many years that it's
> begun the "default" solution for every problem. There are other
> solutions, some of them as good if not better; but it makes sense that
> we want to go running back to minimization every
> But I still think that minimization should be kept because I'm
> 100% sure that at least some applications will never evolve
> the way we expect them to (split into a daemon and a UI), or
> it might take years.
>
> They certainly never will if minimization is aro
Guys,
Many (most?) times it is an option, but just occasionally it has flashing
> graphics, or white text on black background, or it simply annoys you.
Yeah, some windows will do that, it's true.
> I'm not trying to stretch credibility too far, just pointing out that you
> can either leave it
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 15:17 +0100, Simon Booth wrote:
> >Client walks into your office whilst you have confidential information
> >relating to another client on screen?
> > Why is moving to an empty workspace not an option?
> That simply had not occurred to me! It is a bit of a mindset change
> f
> Er, no. Your point was that it should be kept because it exists, and
> proper solutions don't.
>
> At least that was your point after you suggested cases in which it
> would be useful, and I suggested "perfect solutions" (those were your
> words) for them. Minimizing exists, those don't. Hence
It's a little puzzling to me why GNOME Shell has deprecated window
minimization, given that one of its primary design goals is to enable
"distraction-free computing."
The purpose of minimizing a window is precisely to remove it as a
distraction from the current focus. Leaving the window open, but
On 20/06/11 13:47, David Prieto wrote:
> In reply to Julien and Simon,
> in some cases, having a minimize button DOES hurt some people.
>
> A window that is part of the current task, but not needed for a period
> of time yet you do not wish to lose your place? Leave it cluttering the
>
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:47:32 -0400
From: David Prieto
To: Simon Booth
Cc: gnome-shell-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: My opinions on Gnome Shell
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Firstly, just "throwing" the window to another worksp
Julien,
and I'm saying that maybe if *should* be kept because it is actually useful.
>
Er, no. Your point was that it should be kept because it exists, and proper
solutions don't.
At least that was your point after you suggested cases in which it would be
useful, and I suggested "perfect solutio
Pasha,
I think it is really bad approach - to remove features without deprecation
> period.
I think we are in the deprecation period now - that's precisely the reason
why we can still minimize through the button.
> If new workflow is really as good as designers try to convince us, people
> wil
> Minimization does not exist in gnome shell, at least not as part of
> the new workflow. It does exist as a vestigial trace of the old one, a
> sign of how things used to work, but it has no place in the way things
> work now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ability to minimize
> totally disa
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 04:45:30PM +0300, Pasha R wrote:
> they won't, then the design is probably wrong. It is OK to encourage
> users to use new workflow by disabling minimize by default, but
> removing it completely, especially when proper solution is not even
> ready yet, is IMHO totally wrong.
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 16:45 +0300, Pasha R wrote:
> I think it is really bad approach - to remove features without
> deprecation period. If new workflow is really as good as designers try
> to convince us, people will use it and will abandon minimizing. And if
> they won't, then the design is proba
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:31 PM, David Prieto wrote:
> Julien,
>
>> This is here: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651347
>
>
>>
>> Yes, except that there is no "sound menu" in gnome-shell.
>
>
>>
>> I agree, but there is not such thing currently in gnome-shell.
>
> Obviously. We probabl
Julien,
This is here: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651347
> Yes, except that there is no "sound menu" in gnome-shell.
>
> I agree, but there is not such thing currently in gnome-shell.
>
Obviously. We probably wouldn't be having this discussion if those were
implemented.
>
> No please, I *never* want to minimize apps, specially if they decide
> that in their smart way. IMO, changing the close button behaviour
> depending on the application will introduce an inconsistency as big as
> the whole galaxy, when I press the close button I *want* that window to
> be closed a
Il giorno lun, 20/06/2011 alle 15.13 +0200, Julien Olivier ha scritto:
> As I already said in another email, to avoid duplicity, just assign
> the
> close button to "minimize" for applications that need it. Then,
> specify
> it in the desktop file.
No please, I *never* want to minimize apps, spec
> Email applications and instant messengers should only be a way for you
> to interact with your online presence, that is, you should only need
> them running to send an email or an IM, but not to "listen" to
> incoming emails or IMs. Once you have set your accounts, Gnome should
> start listening
In reply to Julien and Simon,
there are applications that need to run constantly but with which the user
> only needs to interact from time to time. This is the case mainly for
> music players, email applications, instant messengers and download
> managers / torrent clients.
>
Let me derail the d
> I wouldn't "hurt", but it isn't a solution. There is ongoing
> conversation about the right solution to this [as has been mentioned
> here several times]. Just bringing back "minimize" isn't a solution.
> And you can still just leave them in a workspace. I always have
> Evolution, Empathy, XIR
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:58 +0100, Simon Booth wrote:
> On 20/06/11 11:57, David Prieto wrote:
> > >There are more reasons to want particular application to be running
> > >for some time without interfering with others, I gave just one.
> > This could be a good time to tell us what those other reas
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 13:34 +0200, Julien Olivier wrote:
> >There are more reasons to want particular application to be
> >running for some time without interfering with others, I gave
> >just one.
> > This could be a good time to tell us what those other reasons are.
> this has been said several
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 06:57 -0400, David Prieto wrote:
>>There are more reasons to want particular application to be
>>running for some time without interfering with others, I gave just
>>one.
> This could be a good time to tell us what those other reasons are.
+1
> >Also, I do not classify thing
On 20/06/11 11:57, David Prieto wrote:
>
> There are more reasons to want particular application to be running
> for some time without interfering with others, I gave just one.
>
>
> This could be a good time to tell us what those other reasons are.
A window that is part of the current
> There are more reasons to want particular application to be
> running for some time without interfering with others, I gave
> just one.
>
> This could be a good time to tell us what those other reasons are.
Hi,
this has been said several times already but I'll say it a
Pasha,
There are more reasons to want particular application to be running for some
> time without interfering with others, I gave just one.
>
This could be a good time to tell us what those other reasons are.
> Also, I do not classify things I'm doing as "tasks" or "window management".
>
You
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Adam Tauno Williams
wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 10:18 +0300, Pasha R wrote:
>> >>> I believe the number of people that need minimizing vastly outnumber
>> >>those who don't.
>> > I don't believe anyone needs minimizing. Why are you minimizing windows?
>> > Windo
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 10:18 +0300, Pasha R wrote:
> >>> I believe the number of people that need minimizing vastly outnumber
> >>those who don't.
> > I don't believe anyone needs minimizing. Why are you minimizing windows?
> > Windows can go to the back of the stack - where they interfere with noth
> 2011/6/19 Job :
>
>> Its a really minority that are happy.
>
> [citation needed]
>
> ciao,
> Emmanuele.
i can provide statistics from one distribution.. Archlinux - 4.57% of
users have gnome-shell installed. you can have a look at the
statistics. they are under 'extra', you will have to scroll
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Adam Tauno Williams
wrote:
>>> > Minimizing is pretty much an obsolete notion.
>>> Software exist to serve the users' needs. I need minimizing.
>>Adding a minimize button would go against the whole design since the
>>windows don't have a place to go when they are m
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Dimitris M. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My opinions on Gnome Shell:
> Window management is atrocious (see below).
> 1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have
> cursed you for this, so far...).
> 2. Switching between wido
On 06/19/2011 05:14 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
2011/6/19 Job:
Its a really minority that are happy.
[citation needed]
ciao,
Emmanuele.
I would go so far as to say citation needed on both sides, but that even
a citation is difficult to believe.
I usually only expect to hear from people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19/06/11 23:13, António Fernandes wrote:
> Then, you can have read at the wiki. Quoting
> from
> https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/#Research.2C_testing_and_validation
> :
>
> "A comprehensive literature review has been conducted as a part
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 05:07:21PM -0500, Bob Gustafson wrote:
> My sympathy is with you as moderator.
If you don't want to be polite on this list then I'll just unsubscribe
you.
--
Regards,
Olav
___
gnome-shell-list mailing list
gnome-shell-list@gnome.
2011/6/19 Bob Gustafson
> On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 22:14 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> > 2011/6/19 Job :
> >
> > > Its a really minority that are happy.
> >
> > [citation needed]
> >
> > ciao,
> > Emmanuele.
> >
>
> Rather than have an individual user come up with user statistics
> covering a (la
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 23:59 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 04:48:30PM -0500, Bob Gustafson wrote:
> > It is the developers who are forcing agony on a (large) number of new
> > Gnome 3 users. Let them show their usability studies to justify their
> > choices.
>
> Let's not con
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 04:48:30PM -0500, Bob Gustafson wrote:
> It is the developers who are forcing agony on a (large) number of new
> Gnome 3 users. Let them show their usability studies to justify their
> choices.
Let's not continue this type of discussion please.
Using terms like agony, forc
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 22:14 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> 2011/6/19 Job :
>
> > Its a really minority that are happy.
>
> [citation needed]
>
> ciao,
> Emmanuele.
>
Rather than have an individual user come up with user statistics
covering a (large) number of new Gnome 3 users, I would like
2011/6/19 Job :
> Its a really minority that are happy.
[citation needed]
ciao,
Emmanuele.
--
W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name
B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/
___
gnome-shell-list mailing list
gnome-shell-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mail
.!
Job
2011/6/19 Dimitris M.
> Hi,
>
> My opinions on Gnome Shell:
>
> Window management is atrocious (see below).
>
> 1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have
> cursed you for this, so far...).
>
> 2. Switching between widows is P
On 06/19/2011 08:49 AM, Dimitris M. wrote:
Hi,
My opinions on Gnome Shell:
Window management is atrocious (see below).
1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have
cursed you for this, so far...).
Been cursing it with you. Off hand, I suppose that the b
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 12:25 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> >> > Minimizing is pretty much an obsolete notion.
> >> Software exist to serve the users' needs. I need minimizing.
> >Adding a minimize button would go against the whole design since the
> >windows don't have a place to go when they
>> > Minimizing is pretty much an obsolete notion.
>> Software exist to serve the users' needs. I need minimizing.
>Adding a minimize button would go against the whole design since the
>windows don't have a place to go when they are minimized. It's more
>like
>making windows disappear.
>> I believ
Il giorno dom, 19/06/2011 alle 17.12 +0100, Dimitris M. ha scritto:
> >> 1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have
> >> cursed you for this, so far...).
> >
> > Minimizing is pretty much an obsolete notion.
> Software exist to serve the users' needs. I need minimizing.
Am Sonntag, den 19.06.2011, 17:12 +0100 schrieb Dimitris M.:
> The effects are pretty fast on my machine too. However they still blow my
> focus.
> In general moving things are intrusive. Here is my list of intrusiveness,
> from worst
> to less bad:
>
> 1. Rearranging stuff. I map the relative
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 17:12 +0100, Dimitris M. wrote:
> >> 1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have
> >> cursed you for this, so far...).
> >
> > Minimizing is pretty much an obsolete notion.
> Software exist to serve the users' needs. I need minimizing.
> I believe
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 17:12 +0100, Dimitris M. wrote:
> >> 1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have
> >> cursed you for this, so far...).
> >
> > Minimizing is pretty much an obsolete notion.
> Software exist to serve the users' needs. I need minimizing.
Adding a mini
>> 1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have
>> cursed you for this, so far...).
>
> Minimizing is pretty much an obsolete notion.
Software exist to serve the users' needs. I need minimizing.
I believe the number of people that need minimizing vastly outnumber those wh
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Adam Tauno Williams
wrote:
>
>
> "Dimitris M." wrote:
>>My opinions on Gnome Shell:
>>Window management is atrocious (see below).
>>1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have
>>cursed yo
"Dimitris M." wrote:
>My opinions on Gnome Shell:
>Window management is atrocious (see below).
>1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have
>cursed you for this, so far...).
Minimizing is pretty much an obsolete notion. I don't miss
Hi,
My opinions on Gnome Shell:
Window management is atrocious (see below).
1. No minimize button (I can't even mention the number of times I have cursed
you for this, so far...).
2. Switching between widows is PAINFUL. The options I have is: move mouse to
top-left or press the windo
64 matches
Mail list logo
