Re: The path of least blame

[Aurélien Naldi <aurelien naldi gmail com>]

Maybe it's users' expectation that is wrong

This is why users get angry. How can an expectation be wrong? It is always right. It is only that expectations are different. For some, they expect a new instance should be started, for others they expect to be taken to the existing instance. My point is that if software does not have enough information to perform as expected, it should choose the option that does not allow users to blame it.

Even if both expectations were equally valid, that would be the wrong criterion. Software exists to help users, not to save itself from blame. 

Hi,

I agree that software is here to help and doesn't care about being blamed, but people writing the software do care :)

To answer the original comment (and starting point of the thread): if we have these two ways to react to a click on the "terminal" (or some other application) icon, how can you pretend to know which is the path of least blame? For me the path of least blame is to raise existing window and help me to avoid clutter. If I want a new one, I can still make the decision myself: ctrl click, right-click, dedicated desktop-level shortcut or "new window" action in the application itself.

I have been mad at classical launchers for years because they allowed me to open many terminal windows instead of raising the existing window(s). Of course it can be solved at the application level (some applications do) but for me it is a sweet feature of the desktop itself.

As people have already said, if the application is already running, the icon has som kind of overlay, so you know it is running and you know a normal click will raise the existing one.

Best regards.

-- 
Aurélien Naldi