David, let me set the tone to my reply to you by stating that I
appreciate your well thought out responses.... Keep that in mind
while you read my responses (since I make no attempt at responding
using tact.... I do, however, make a point to not be rude). You
wander into my neck of the woods, let me feed you!
On 06/20/2011 08:47 AM, David Prieto wrote:
Email applications and instant messengers should only be a
way for you to interact with your online presence, that is, you
should only need them running to send an email or an IM, but not
to "listen" to incoming emails or IMs. Once you have set your
accounts, Gnome should start listening for those as soon as you
start your PC and notify you as soon as any communications
arrive, then only launch Evolution or Empathy if you actually
want to open an interface in order to interact with them.
Off hand I disagree with this. Gnome is neither an email server, nor
is it an instant messenger. I do not use Evolution, nor do I use
Empathy.
As for music players, I love what Ubuntu did: they integrated
Rhythmbox and Banshee into the sound menu, so that you can keep
listening to your music without having to keep an open window.
If you open Banshee and then close it while it's not playing, it
will close as expected. If you open Banshee, press play and then
close the window, your music will keep playing even though there
is no window. You can skip songs or stop the music usin the
sound menu.
As for torrent apps and download managers, my opinion is that
Gnome should have a progress
indicator that hosts running operations waiting to
complete: that is downloads, file operations, disc burning, and
so on.
I'm not trying to start a discussion about how convenient these
would be: my point is only that, in all those situations you
mentioned, there are alternative solutions to minimizing; it
only looks like the obvious one because we've been minimizing
windows forever, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the best
one.
I see advantages and disadvantages.... You ALWAYS run these
applications, and they are ALWAYS running. You do not see them
running, but Gnome is smart enough to have a special case to bring
up the GUI for those applications off a special menu somewhere (but
that menu is not always visible like say a list of minimized
applications might be).
I don't see why, for such applications, having a way to minimize
them
(hide the main window from the screen, the overlay and the
ALT-TAB list,
but keep the application running in background) would hurt.
It adds complexity. Some people (take my mom as an example) just
can't tell the difference between closing a window and
minimizing it. When they accidentally minimize a window they
don't know where it has gone, they don't know that now it's in
the taskbar. They just don't get the concept of a taskbar.
Hmmm, I know that person. He was very very confused by two monitors
until I took the time to demonstrate how they worked. Now he loves
them. Never seen an argument for not supporting two monitors because
it confused users (where did my cursor go?).
To get back to what they were doing, they will repeat the
process they followed the first time: press the launcher, which
will launch a brand new window of that application... without
all the work they'd done. Other times they will spot the app
icon on the taskbar and press it, which will take them back to
the existing window, but they simply DO NOT understand why they
sometimes get back their window, and they sometimes get a new
one.
Sounds like an argument to remove the launcher to avoid confusion
:-)
This duplicity is, objectively, a problem for some people. I
have seen it. Removing the minimize button solves the problem
for them. I'm not saying helping them is worth bothering other
users; I'm only saying that in some cases, having a minimize
button DOES hurt some people.
So does removing the launcher. I found it very confusing that the
Activities screen showed some applications that were running ; and
some that were not. Took a while for me to understand what was
happening. Well, really, I had to take the time to read about it
since it was not remotely obvious. I might argue that this is
exactly the same reason you stated that we should not minimize
programs..... Both running and not running programs show up in the
same place. I'm just saying....
A window that is part of the current task, but not needed for
a period
of time yet you do not wish to lose your place? Leave it
cluttering the
desktop, move to another desktop, or minimize?
Why is just leaving it in the background not an option?
For me this usually occurs when I want to work with just a few
windows for a moment. When I have only a couple not minimized, I can
easily know which is which (say 3) even if they are layered. More of
a problem with say 5. Sure, I could shoot them off the desktop for a
bit and then move them back, but that is rather cumbersome.
Client walks into your office whilst you have confidential
information
relating to another client on screen?
Why is moving to an empty workspace not an option?
It takes significantly more time to do that than to minimize it. I
can, however, quickly jump to another virtual desktop (or now that I
have memorized yet another secret click sequence, I can middle click
to send it to the back if there are other windows).
I knew one user who knew about Alt-Tab but just "didn't like
it". She
would always switch between windows by minimizing all then
restoring the
one she wanted. Granted, I hated seeing here do that, but she
was
comfortable with it.
Well, my mom refuses to use the scroll wheel OR drag the
scroll bar. She won't even keep the little arrow pressed, she
just clicks it once and again, and again and again and God, do
I hate it. I'd gladly remove those little arrows if that gave
her a gentle push towards acquiring saner computer habits.
Let me first say that I really know what you mean. If people do not
do it exactly the same way I do, it drives me crazy. Unfortunately,
if you read books by people such as Cynithia Tobias about how
people work, you start to understand that different people work in
different ways. If I had my druthers, I might not allow people to
use a word processor and use hard coded formatting (like a bold or
italics button). I would force them to create a custom style based
on the reason that they want to do that and then use that to apply
their formatting. I have found, however, that the fast majority of
word processor users have no clue how to use styles and no desire to
learn. It is just too complicated.
Firstly, just "throwing" the window to another workspace is
easier to
say than do if you only use the mouse (and no amount of
training will
persuade _some_ people to do any different.)
I agree. I think that throwing a window to another WS needs to
become easier.
I might want a special WS to the right that could act like a
minimize workspace :-) (whip and beat me later).
Secondly, I don't think you should assume that a taskbar
necessarily
interferes with my work. Sometimes it can, but I can always
move the
interfering window to another workspace if I simply cannot
control myself.
It does interefere to a point.
As does that top line along the top...
Maybe less than having the whole window in the
background, but more than not having anything. You used the word
"clutter" before. I don't think this applies only to windows, but
also to any interface elements that are not relevant to what
you're doing.
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
|
