Just make it as Docky. On a click when; 1) If all windows are visible, all windows should minimize. 2) If one of the windows of the same group is minimized, but others are visbible it should restore all windows 3) If all windows are minimized, **all** of them restore old position
I see no ambiguity in this, it is behaviour I learned to like for as long as I used Docky, it is intuitive and I see no problems with this flow. Don't make it more complicated then it is, but offering no minimize but only restore is silly. It requires me to do a whole lot more mousework if I quickly want to toggle a browser window to the front and back when for example I read API docs when I am developing in Eclipse. I am not using Unity right now, for that specific reason, it drives me crazy that it seems to be 'off' behaviour wise. Every task mamager works like that and worked like that for ages. Don't break this expected behaviour, so yes in my eyes it is a bug. - Jorgen On 06/23/2011 02:50 PM, The Fiddler wrote: > 2011/6/23 Sam Spilsbury<smspil...@gmail.com> > >>> >>> 2) You (meaning Canonical) accept the fact that people post requests in >>> which they demand changes to the system. But Canonical should then make >>> clear that they do not want any extra work from non-canonical members >>> because they are not willing to maintain patches from users. So do not >>> post any messages on planet.ubuntu or anywhere to get people to fix >>> bugs, as I deem this insolent. Canonical cannot request users to work >>> for free on those bugs they deem worthy to be worked on but completely >>> ignore those bugs in which they are not interested. >> >> Bugfixing is not the same as adding functionality or changing the >> direction of the design of the project. The design team and the >> ayatana community have worked hard to create a design vision for >> Unity, and it is clear that we want something that is consistent with >> the goals of Canonical Design and Ayatana. Thus, those who create the >> product have a voice in the direction it goes in. This is no different >> to the way it works in KDE, or GNOME or any other distribution with >> module proposals and the like. >> > > Indeed. But as you can see from the community response to this design > choice, there *is* an issue here and this issue might merit reconsideration > in the design. SRoesgen summed things up succinctly: when you click on an > icon, you expect something to happen. When nothing happens, the icon feels > broken. > > *What* should happen is something that the design team can and should > consider. A few people have suggested minimization - rejected - but there > are other, potentially even better, possibilities. > > Why am I being so persistent here? Because several users I support have > commented on this behavior spontaneously - and I had nothing better to offer > other than "it's by design" (reply: "what?") and that Unity is still under > heavy development (reply: "ah, so they'll fix it"). > > Anecdotal evidence but easily reproducible. Just place someone in front an > Ubuntu laptop, let him go about his daily tasks (browsing, messaging, maybe > edit a document) and have him comment on his actions and feelings. It won't > take long, especially if he uses a low-resolution monitor (e.g. 1366x768) > which requires frequent window management. > -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349 Title: Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
