Re: Task Panel

[Florian Müllner <florian muellner gmail com>]

El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 07:33 +0800, Allan E. Registos escribió:
> But I think there must be a need of some extension to handle task 
> switching aside from the current one

Given that most proposals on this list probably require less than
hundred lines of Javascript to implement, I'd be very much surprised if
we didn't end up with dozens of extensions dedicated to task switching.


And at least in my opinion, it makes perfect sense.


While it's certainly true that a task list / dock is among the more
vehemently demanded features (mildly put), most proponents tend to
overlook that the actual proposals differ quite a lot.

A rather incomplete list from memory:

- use the message tray summary to "swallow" minimized windows
- add a dock to the left side of the message tray
   (related: making the bottom left "hot" and pop up the alt-tab
             dialog when activated)
- add an application switcher to the application menu
- move the clock to the right and add a dock in its place
  (or remove the calendar in favor of a window switcher)
- add a windowmaker style icon box for minimized apps
...

Given that some people are pretty passionate about the issue, I'd guess
that many of them would be just as pissed off if we'd add a dock -
because "we got it all wrong".


Plus, apart from those who are fine with using the overview, there's
another group of people who have their own idea about task switching:

When the message tray first appeared in the shell, the whole screen
bottom was a "hot edge" which made the tray pop out. There were quite a
few complaints from users, because it interfered with external dock
applications like docky or awn - since the message tray was changed to
use a hot spot instead, those complaints stopped, so it appears that we
(*gasp*) indeed did something right there.


To sum it up: Some people are happy with the overview, some people want
some kind of task switching in the shell and some people already use a
dock. One of these groups is not happy.


Now let's step back a little and have a look at one of the conceptual
differences between the GNOME 2.x panel and the shell:

Everything in the panel is actually an applet, no matter whether we
consider it "essential" or not. So it's perfectly valid to replace the
default configuration with a single panel containing nothing but Wanda
the fish, GEyes and a custom launcher for "wine solitaire.exe". Not very
useful, but that's the point here: gnome-panel is pretty useless itself
without any additional components (menu, notification area, window
list, ...), which are all optional - in fact, it is not uncommon for
users to replace the bottom panel and its applets with an alternative
dock.

The shell on the other hand aims to provide a more or less inmutable
core - a set of elements which we can assume to be there and work
consistently on different installations, which guarantees that the shell
will be usable: you won't be able to right-click the Activities button
and select "Remove from panel" ...

Of course, even us interface nazis have to recognize that different
users have different needs and workflows - that's where customization
comes into play. And that's also where GNOME shell beats the panel hands
down. Because despite being super-flexible in regard of which components
to use and where to put them, applets are pretty limited in what they
can do - just consider the constraint of a 24 pixel default height.

Shell extensions are completely different - instead of being placed on
some tiny strip on any screen edge, an extension is pretty free to put
anything anywhere, bound to pretty much the same constraints as the
shell itself - no more, no less.

Add some action to the user menu? Pop up the alt-tab dialog when
clicking anywhere on the panel? Make Wanda swim the wild seas of your
desktop (free the fish anyone)? Add a porn^H^H^H^Hprivacy mode to the
overview? There's a lot of stuff extensions can add(*) - but as
mentioned above, the core shell is designed to be a stable base, so
extensions cannot remove core elements(**). Let's just assume that
there's a reason for Mozilla to call Firefox' extensions addons and not
removicals ...


Many of these things are actually possible right now - the extension
system is in place and working. It's far from perfect and some stuff
sucks royally (distribution, installation, management) - but all these
issues are good reasons to improve the way extensions work, not to avoid
them altogether.

The diversity of opinions on the "right" way to switch between
applications makes the extension system appear like a good fit here - if
we don't impose our ideas on users, people(***) are free to use whatever
they want. Paraphrasing Orwell:

OMISSION IS CHOICE


(*) and it's not at all limited to the panel - extensions can extend the
overview or any part of the screen
(**) okay, that's really a lie, but a white one - extensions can
actually remove stuff, but they'll burn in hell for all eternity if they
do!
(***) or distributions - the fact that gnome-shell won't ship with
default extensions does not imply that distributions can't either