Lots of discussion -- but I'm not sure how much benefit the Sugar *user* might receive.
I think that everybody agrees (myself included) that the user must be able to call up the Frame anytime. And for typical Activities, the amount of screen real estate they *themselves* obstruct (which the Frame itself doesn't already obstruct) is small. Looks like a "general" mechanism to free up screen real estate ends up freeing mainly areas that get overlain anyway whenever Frame is called. -------- To me, supporting "multiple windows for one Activity" is a much more pressing need than supporting "full screen for every Activity". In the current Sugar implementation, alt-tab appears to provide an adequate way to navigate among such windows (i.e., screens) - but more discussion is needed about the role of Frame in this situation. -------- I see nothing wrong with what some Activities already implement - by default they run with some areas obstructed by "decorations" -- but at the option of the user a short-cut removes those decorations. [Now if the discussion were about how to best implement such a facility - go to it. But it seems to me the discussion is leaning too far towards a "let's free the Activity's limits" crusade.] I think that to a user, "gray circles left in Frame" are of more immediate concern than "shortcomings of using Matchbox with Sugar". mikus _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar