Adamw:
That leaves terminal / Terminal, and all the system-config-* vs.
control-center components (things like Date Time are identical between
the two). That seems a larger problem than just the menu entries,
though. There's kind of a demarcation question here; GNOME seems to have
decided
@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Too similar application names
CC: l...@lists.fedoraproject.org; desk...@lists.fedoraproject.org;
x...@lists.fedoraproject.org; k...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Let's bring this up on today's QA meeting, I am sure we'll get a good
input on which way to go
- Original Message -
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 09:54 -0400, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
The way KDE application launcher handles this also provides nice
example for a design solution to this problem. They use a
Generic (e.g. Terminal) field to describe the application
primarily
and
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 05:50 -0400, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
Are you referring to a situation in KDE(can't boot it now to check)?
Of course. I quoted a specific point i.e. that The way KDE application
launcher handles this also provides nice example for a design solution
to this problem.. What I'm
- Original Message -
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 05:50 -0400, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
Are you referring to a situation in KDE(can't boot it now to check)?
Of course. I quoted a specific point i.e. that The way KDE
application
launcher handles this also provides nice example for a design
Let's bring this up on today's QA meeting, I am sure we'll get a good
input on which way to go there.
On the QA meeting on Monday, we've decided to reach out to GNOME for ideas on
presenting duplicate application names in the overview. We'll see if they are
willing to help us. Based on that
Vita, I'll see if there is anyone at Southeast Linux Fest associated with xcfe
and lxde.
If so, I'll talk to them directly and report back here.
John
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 05:37:13 -0400
From: vhu...@redhat.com
To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Too similar application
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 09:54 -0400, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
The way KDE application launcher handles this also provides nice
example for a design solution to this problem. They use a
Generic (e.g. Terminal) field to describe the application primarily
and have the name of the actual binary (e.g.
I agree, this is a good starting point. I don't really see the point
of the popups,
but if other folks think they're necessary, I won't argue.
Wouldn't have to be popups. Actually they are used now to provide a
textual description of what the application does, e.g. for Brasero
Disk Burner -
That all said, question remains on what to actually do on this. In a
long term I'd suggest trying advocate that there is a appropriate
solution based in the upstream, might it be pop-ups (sounds reasonable
to do for all the desktop environments) or something based on how KDE
does it.
Thanks everybody for the input!
Yeah, changing how the various desktop's launchers work is an upstream
decision (in fact, changing what things are named in desktop files
probably
is as well.)
Sorry but I have to disagree here, cryptic executable names don't
belong in the UI at all.
Hey folks,
At last Fedora QA meeting John Dulaney had a proposal concerning the issue of
similar application names we use around Fedora desktops.
For example: surely sometimes you had both GNOME and XFCE installed and went
for menus to open - say a terminal. The environment would use the same
2011/6/2 Vitezslav Humpa vhu...@redhat.com
Hey folks,
At last Fedora QA meeting John Dulaney had a proposal concerning the issue
of similar application names we use around Fedora desktops.
For example: surely sometimes you had both GNOME and XFCE installed and
went for menus to open - say
On 06/02/2011 09:54 AM, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
Hey folks,
(1) I think showing the executable name for every application is vital.
Whether its directly in menu, popup or alternating pink flashing
lights .. :-)
The gnome and kde search tools alreadys search for executable names,
so only
Genes MailLists (li...@sapience.com) said:
The optional executable name should always be available. However these
details are really 'upstream' aren't they?
Yeah, changing how the various desktop's launchers work is an upstream
decision (in fact, changing what things are named in desktop
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote:
On 06/02/2011 09:54 AM, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
Hey folks,
(1) I think showing the executable name for every application is vital.
Whether its directly in menu, popup or alternating pink flashing
lights .. :-)
On 06/02/2011 08:54 AM, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
Hey folks,
At last Fedora QA meeting John Dulaney had a proposal concerning the issue of
similar application names we use around Fedora desktops.
For example: surely sometimes you had both GNOME and XFCE installed and went
for menus to open -
17 matches
Mail list logo
