Re: Reprise of the panel layout proposal

["Michael T. Babcock" <mbabcock fibrespeed net>]

thristian atdot org wrote:

> Bearing that in mind, what is the minimum possible desktop needed to
> "bootstrap" your desktop back to full functionality?
Desktop-clicking to receive a pop-up menu.  The absence of this feature 
equates
to a Window manager that is not Gnome compliant.

PS, I don't think Gnome should handle the "desktop" as Nautilus does, 
but rather
the way GMC did.  This allows us to know that the Window Manager will still
be able to manage the root window and give the user access to their menus.

> I don't like the Menu panel. The functionality it contains is limited
> and better-supplied by other features. Sure, Fitt's Law lets you hit
I don't even care about how fast I hit a menu but whether my desktop is 
usable. ;-)
I don't ever want Gnome to force me into having application menus on the 
menu
panel, although I don't mind "Programs" being in the top left (since 
that's where I
always moved my Windows Start menu as well).

> Sure, a minimalist might like to have  just a menu panel and drop
> tasklist and pager applets in it, but unless you stock the "menu" bar
> full of a lot of things that *aren't* menus, it's wasting space.
Agreed (looks up).  I have "Programs, System, Help" then launchers for
7 applications, the mini commander, blank (ugly) space, the time and the 
task icon.
I wish I could make the task icon wider ... ;-)

> I would suggest that "Current Tasks" be a better name for the menu,
I think "Tasks" is quite sufficient.  A single entry of "No running 
applications"
as the first 'application' would be easy enough for any user to decipher 
if they
actually clicked it.  An optional MRU at the bottom/top with a divider 
between
it and actual running tasks would make me really happy.

> This would be why the Mac puts these functions away in the "Special"
> menu, I guess. *sigh*
Why don't we brainstorm a word that means "do" (like Microsoft's attempt 
with
"Start")?  Actions ... etc. ...

> By default, no pager. There's nothing a pager can do that can't be
> done with minimizing windows at the expense of a bit more time. If the
> user really wants a pager and knows what one is (or wants to learn)
> there's a perfectly functional one in the applets menu. 
I've always used roll-ups to manage multiple windows ... and a pager for
completely seperate workspaces.

--
Michael T. Babcock
CTO, FibreSpeed