Re: Window titles

[Patryk Zawadzki <patrys pld-linux org>]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Andrew Cowie
<andrew operationaldynamics com> wrote:
> What is the current correct behaviour for window titles?
>
> I'm working in something right now that manipulates documents; I could
> do:
>
> blah.xml
> blah.xml - Program
> Chapter Title
> Chapter Title - Program
>
> When I researched the HIG on this (some years ago, admittedly), the
> advice boiled down to what I wrote in our API documentation for Window's
> setTitle(),
> http://java-gnome.sourceforge.net/4.0/doc/api/org/gnome/gtk/Window.html#setTitle(java.lang.String)
>
> However,
>
> Judging by this screenshot I took of the window selector applet's popup
> list, we're all over the map at the moment (which is to say people are
> still doing their own thing, and whatever GNOME's policy is, it's not
> being enforced very well),
> http://research.operationaldynamics.com/files/andrew/WindowTitles_Screenshot.png

It's never really been standardized, even the API docs above seem more
like a hint than a requirement.

> It's also obvious that we're still getting dealing with the hangover
> from when someone thought it would be cool to have programs called "Web
> Browser" instead of Epiphany, etc — so we see some programs calling
> themselves "Sound Reorder", some saying a document title / email subject
> (only), some saying  "path/to/filename.ext - Application", "Inbox (1849
> total) - Evolution", and permutations thereon.

I think it makes most sense if document-driven apps (abiword,
gnumeric, file-roller etc.) just show the document name while
task-centric apps (evolution, transmission) show their purpose
followed by a short summary ("e-mail - 25 unread").

Evolution's current behavior makes it a moving target. The window
constantly renames itself each time you switch folders. IMHO it should
only change the first part of the title when you switch from e-mail to
calendar or address book.

> I must admit I'm worryingly tempted to do "Document Title -
> Application". But I also know there was once a push to have only the
> shorter form along with the icons to identify application. But given the
> kill-the-icons meme that's suddenly turned up around here, it no longer
> seems a good idea to be de-emphasizing one's application's name.

Only purely decorative icons were dropped, app icons and document
icons are here to stay.

-- 
Patryk Zawadzki