Re: Thumbs up!

[Denis Washington <denisw online de>]

Am 26.04.2011 09:33, schrieb Bojan Smojver:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:46 +0200, David Prieto wrote:
>
> > For me it's not. It saves me the effort of managing windows half as windows
> > (obviously) and half as tiny taskbar list items.
> Taskbar (i.e. Gnome 2) is not the only way to manage currently running
> windows. See Mac OS X and Windows 7.
>
> > It doesn't. Overview places windows according to their previous position. A
> > window you placed to the left will also be at the left in Overview. Plus,
> > there's an animation showing you where each window went.
> Animation? I already know where my windows are. Why do I need animation
> to show me where they went if they didn't move? Hint: they _did_ move.
> Also note that they changed size in exposé.

The problem is that some windows might be partly or completely covered 
by other windows. Not moving them to not overlap would mean that these 
windows wouldn't be visible in the overview, which would somehow defeat 
its purpose of letting the user see and switch to every other window. 
Thus, the moving is a necessary evil.

> Please, you said it yourself: animation shows me where they went. If
> they went, how can they be in the same place?

I think he meant that if, say, you have a window on the left side of a 
workspace, it will also appear at the left in the overview, that is, it 
is approximately at the same place (but not exactly, naturally).

Regards,
Denis