Bojan, Both of which are different from Gnome 2 taskbar. I am not advocating > taskbar in particular (nor do I use it often). Anyway, see below.
They are not different in that they use tiny, randomly-placed (in that they don't reflect the window's actual placement) items to represent windows. THAT they have in common. Is that true, or isn't it? > What I would agree with is that workplace management has to make windows > bigger then current Gnome 2 switcher. Please don't stray. You said that "people remember things by shape, size and position". I replied that based on that, locating a window on the Overview (similar size, similar location) is easier than locating it on a taskbar or on a dock (tiny items, random location), be it Gnome2's, Windows' or OSX's. Do you agree with that, or don't you? > If you have a lot of windows behind one another, this is where things like > expose _are_ actually useful. Or are smarter taskbar. > Well, here comes the news. In all other situations, in order to select a partially hidden window, neither the Overview nor the Taskbar are necessary because you can just click the part that's shown. So, basically, what you're saying is that in the only case where they ARE necessary, the Overview does a better job than a tasklisk, or a dock, or call it what you will. Can we agree about that and move to your other points?
_______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
