I think it would be worth fleshing out some existing parts of the
design, like the application menu and launchers, before delving in to
gizmos as a separate component. In the end, if the rest is done to
cover the appropriate jobs, they may not be necessary.
One really dumb thing with gnome-panel
What I would die is two things that stem from the same concept:
A low operation mode that would be sent through a term signal
so that the application knows it only has to perform basic
operations. Like Rhytmbox only playing music and giving status
updates, basically suspending there graphical
On 21 Apr 2009, at 04:34, Travis Watkins wrote:
This one at least has been solved in Windows 7 by merging the
QuickLaunch area with running applications. A dock would also solve
this problem nicely. You'll notice OS X doesn't have a lot of
applets on the menu bar. The only one I've seen a lot
Hi Calum,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Calum Benson calum.ben...@sun.com wrote:
On 21 Apr 2009, at 04:34, Travis Watkins wrote:
This one at least has been solved in Windows 7 by merging the
QuickLaunch area with running applications. A dock would also solve
this problem nicely. You'll
On 1 May 2009, at 00:00, William Jon McCann wrote:
On the plus side, the good thing about OS X menu extras (as they're
properly
called) is that they're all generally of a uniform size and
appearance (they
fit into a square, and they're monochrome)-- the 15 I have still
take up
less
I'm new to this (having just joined the gnome-shell-list, but I quite
like this suggestion, with one possible addition. I was wondering
whether all of them could be on a circular strip (think zoetrope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoetrope) which could easily be rotated so
that you can choose and
Le lundi 20 avril 2009 à 16:10 -0700, Dylan McCall a écrit :
I do have a guess what could be done. Firstly, abolish applets as things
which must be run differently from other applications; the user should
not Ever see the word applet again. Enhance running applications and
how they connect
Hi,
possible solution, the golden one imho, could be to create new API for
applets, while redefining term applet. Applet could be equivalent to
widgets in macos x, or plasmoids (horrible naming) in kde. Small self
contained applications rendered either with gtk+ or some htmlview with
javascript
Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
While I agree your proposal would be a great enhancement for most
applications that abuse of the notification area (e.g. music players), I
don't think that could fully replace applets. Applets like timerapplet
or sticky notes are different from standard applications
I've found that I really like the plasmoid approach from KDE4. Most of
those things fit the description of infrequently needed for short
periods of time, or crack. From my point of view (a user), I mainly
want to be able to get to applets quickly. With the current small
format of applets on the
Just to throw my hat into the ring, I thought I'd link to some previous
discussion on applets.
http://davyd.livejournal.com/118545.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-September/msg00241.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-September/msg00384.html
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Emmanuele Bassi schrieb:
no need to Cc me in: I'm subscribe to d-d-l.
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 16:02 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
what do applets provide, nowadays, and are they even remotely useful?
what can deskbar-applet provide that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matteo Settenvini schrieb:
Just to give some ideas
* do applets need to be in the panel
No, and that's why Superkaramba - KDE, Google and Microsoft have come up
with on-screen widgets, which may be the solution ebassi is searching
for?
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Owen Taylor schrieb:
[...]
The last thing I'll mention here is that I don't think we should be
overly concerned with porting and applet parity. If there was no system
monitor applet in GNOME 3.0, life would go on. What we should be
concerned
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:54:43PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
Crack
===
Brightness applet
Inhibit Applet
There will be often differences in opionions. I, for one, use above
two applets very often. First, because changing brightness keyboard
shortcut require two hands on my laptop, but
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 16:23 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:54:43PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
Crack
===
Brightness applet
Inhibit Applet
There will be often differences in opionions. I, for one, use above
two applets very often. First, because changing
Emmanuele:
we've been changing the platform gradually over the years, mostly by
deprecating stuff and including new functionality. nevertheless, I
haven't heard a single justification for the continued existence of
applets.
I wonder how this fits in with the gdesklets project, if at all. I
On 04/19/2009 05:38 PM, Shaun McCance wrote:
The Tomboy applet is an extremely convenient way to access
your notes. You think of it as wasting valuable screen
real estate. But to a heavy note-taking person, it's just
really convenient.
Except that Tomboy using a status icon in the
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Hubert Figuiere h...@figuiere.net wrote:
On 04/19/2009 05:38 PM, Shaun McCance wrote:
The Tomboy applet is an extremely convenient way to access
your notes. You think of it as wasting valuable screen
real estate. But to a heavy note-taking person, it's just
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:24:38PM -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
On 04/19/2009 05:38 PM, Shaun McCance wrote:
The Tomboy applet is an extremely convenient way to access
your notes. You think of it as wasting valuable screen
real estate. But to a heavy note-taking person, it's just
really
On 04/20/2009 12:37 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:24:38PM -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
On 04/19/2009 05:38 PM, Shaun McCance wrote:
The Tomboy applet is an extremely convenient way to access
your notes. You think of it as wasting valuable screen
real estate. But to a
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
On 04/20/2009 12:37 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Not the same. Fitts' law. Having Tomboy applet in border of screen
makes it crazy big target to hit with mouse, which is good. Notification
icon is many times harder to hit.
Brian Cameron schrieb:
Emmanuele:
we've been changing the platform gradually over the years, mostly by
deprecating stuff and including new functionality. nevertheless, I
haven't heard a single justification for the continued existence of
applets.
I wonder how this fits in with the
2009/4/19 Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 23:26 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
Fortunately Ubuntu is yet experimenting on alternate, ephimeral
notifications ;)
that has nothing to do with applets, gadgets/widgets/desktlets/whatever
and resident application.
I've a
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 16:23 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:54:43PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
One man's crack is another's basic functionality.
Note that Crack was in quotes. I think it's
2009/4/20 Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com:
The last thing I'll mention here is that I don't think we should be
overly concerned with porting and applet parity. If there was no system
monitor applet in GNOME 3.0, life would go on. What we should be
concerned about is creating the ecosystem where
Hey Owen,
The main open question for gnome-shell is not how to implement them.
It's the user interface question. And when we look at the user interface
question I think the label applet is a bit deceptive. We have all sort
of different things that are applets, and their only commonality is
Applets in general are broken because they are no different in
functionality from regular applications, or from each other (in terms of
desklets vs panel applets vs. the notification area). Many applets are
applets because they have very small, simple interfaces; too small to
justify having big
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Dylan McCall dylanmcc...@gmail.com wrote:
Similarly, all sorts of applications choose to hide within the
notification area because they want to stay out of the user's way and
window managers fail to provide the necessary functionality themselves.
Thus, they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Colin Walters schrieb:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Sandy Armstrong
* What is the applet story for gnome-shell? As the maintainer of a GNOME
applet (Tomboy), I accept that there may be significant work to port our
applet to a new
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop
evolution.
why?
we've been changing the platform gradually over the years, mostly by
deprecating stuff and including new functionality. nevertheless, I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Emmanuele Bassi schrieb:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop
evolution.
why?
we've been changing the platform gradually over the years,
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop
evolution.
why?
Because users want some functionality to be conveniently available
Il giorno dom, 19/04/2009 alle 14.31 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi ha scritto:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop
evolution.
why?
we've been changing the platform gradually over the years,
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 17:26 +0200, Matteo Settenvini wrote:
Il giorno dom, 19/04/2009 alle 14.31 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi ha scritto:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop
evolution.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jamie McCracken schrieb:
If a new infrastructure is needed then it would be best to merge it with
notification icons and make it xdg compliant and not gnome specific
I would love to see desktop a independent applet/widget/whatever spec.
I'm just
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Sebastian Pölsterl s...@k-d-w.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jamie McCracken schrieb:
If a new infrastructure is needed then it would be best to merge it with
notification icons and make it xdg compliant and not gnome specific
Hi!
CC'ing GNOME shell list as this is probably the space this should be
discussed.
As the deskbar-applet maintainer I'm very concerned that are no clear
plans for an applet/desktop widget framework, yet. I guess porting an
applet to the new yet-to-be-invented framework would take
2009/4/19 Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de:
Hi!
CC'ing GNOME shell list as this is probably the space this should be
discussed.
As the deskbar-applet maintainer I'm very concerned that are no clear
plans for an applet/desktop widget framework, yet. I guess porting an
applet to the new
2009/4/19 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen mikkel.kamst...@gmail.com:
2009/4/19 Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de:
Hi!
CC'ing GNOME shell list as this is probably the space this should be
discussed.
As the deskbar-applet maintainer I'm very concerned that are no clear
plans for an applet/desktop
no need to Cc me in: I'm subscribe to d-d-l.
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 16:02 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
what do applets provide, nowadays, and are they even remotely useful?
what can deskbar-applet provide that cannot be implemented with
something that does not sit inside a 24x24 icon
2009/4/19 Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop
evolution.
why?
cut
Emmanuele, do you[1] or do not have a plan for pluggable
applications (formerly know as
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 08:21 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop
evolution.
why?
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 23:26 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
2009/4/19 Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop
evolution.
why?
cut
Emmanuele, do you[1]
Hi!
The reason applets are still alive is that people find
them useful. Could applets be replaced by something
much more sane? I'm sure. But throwing away applets
without offering an appealing alternative is not a
solution. It's curing a hangnail with amputation.
OK, but that means to
Just to give some ideas
* do applets need to be in the panel
No, and that's why Superkaramba - KDE, Google and Microsoft have come up
with on-screen widgets, which may be the solution ebassi is searching
for?
* do applets have to be constantly visible
Yes, that's the whole point of it,
Luca Ferretti wrote:
I think that applets developers are legitimate to be worried about
their own efforts, the only reference in gnome-shell stuff is Design
an applet/add-on system in Open Design Question.
The original hackfest writeup
[ Resend from a typo in the To: ]
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 23:26 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
2009/4/19 Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop
evolution.
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 22:54 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
[ Resend from a typo in the To: ]
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 23:26 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
2009/4/19 Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote:
I think it would be a big mistake
Am Donnerstag, den 09.04.2009, 19:56 -0700 schrieb Dave Neary:
I also noted this line at the top of Andre's (now public) wiki page on
2.99 release plans at http://live.gnome.org/AndreKlapper/299: Schedule
draft (non-public only to avoid bike shed discussions).
This echos something that was
On 04/13/2009 12:20 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:45:56AM -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
What other changes in GNOME 2.30 depend on inclusion of mutter and
gnome-shell? Not really sure why we are willing to hold back the 2.30
release, instead of holding back the inclusion
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Sandy Armstrong
sanfordarmstr...@gmail.com wrote:
What confuses me is why this wasn't discussed using the same module proposal
process we have used for a few years now. Many shiny new things have been
blocked for cycle after cycle due to issues or lack of
From: Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org
* What is the a11y story for gnome-shell and mutter? Eiphany+Webkit has
blocked on this for several cycles now.
My understanding on this is that once we have the requisite pieces to
embed GTK+ in Clutter, we'll get a significant chunk of this
On 04/09/2009 07:56 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Vincent Untz wrote:
(generally speaking, I believe all release team meetings have public
minutes since at least a few years, and the release team mailing list is
used most 99% of the time for communication)
Thanks for the info and the
with me: this doesn't feel like a community decision.
It may not have been clearly stated in the Planning for GNOME 3.0
email but of course the discussion is open, and welcome, in his blog
Andre for example started with the following paragraph:
Today I have released a GNOME release schedule
On 04/13/2009 10:07 AM, Frederic Peters wrote:
Sandy Armstrong wrote:
I sympathize with the desire to compete and innovate, but Dave's
criticisms resonate with me: this doesn't feel like a community decision.
It may not have been clearly stated in the Planning for GNOME 3.0
email
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:45:56AM -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
What other changes in GNOME 2.30 depend on inclusion of mutter and
gnome-shell? Not really sure why we are willing to hold back the 2.30
release, instead of holding back the inclusion of gnome-shell.
GNOME 2.30 does not
Hi all,
Vincent Untz wrote:
During the first few months of 2008, a few Release Team members
discussed here and there about the state of GNOME. This was nothing
official, and it could actually have been considered as some friends
talking together about things they deeply care about. There
Hi All:
Tomorrow (Friday) is the deadline for GUADEC/Akademy submissions. I'm
curious if there would be interest in setting up a GUADEC BOF around
accessibility? My personal goals would be to focus on three main areas:
1) Bonobo/CORBA deprecation, including AT-SPI/D-Bus, magnification, and
Willie:
I would be interested to attend such a BoF. I think that all three
topics you mention are important. Perhaps another agenda item to
discuss how GNOME 3.0 will impact a11y would also be appropriate.
I think the Bonobo/CORBA deprecation falls into this category, but
I think there are
Hi,
Le mercredi 08 avril 2009, à 23:27 -0700, Dave Neary a écrit :
I'm not sure what can be done about it now, but at least, it might be
useful if release team discussions on this subject were published for
review, I think.
I can think of only one private mail discussion about this (although
Hi Vincent,
Vincent Untz wrote:
(generally speaking, I believe all release team meetings have public
minutes since at least a few years, and the release team mailing list is
used most 99% of the time for communication)
Thanks for the info and the link, Vincent. I was not aware that the
Hi,
Ted Gould wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:17 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
... it's worth noting that
distributors and other community members using GNOME to build enterprise
products will most certainly help maintain the GNOME 2.x shell for quite
some time, and the project will support
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 14:31 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le jeudi 02 avril 2009, à 11:44 -0400, Willie Walker a écrit :
For developers local to the Boston area, I'm happy to take a visit to
your sight to go over accessibility considerations and to discuss your
new UI's with you from an
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:17 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
There's one obvious question related to those potential changes: what
will happen to the old way of doing things? For example, will we still
make the GNOME Panel available if, for some reason, people are not
immediately happy with GNOME
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ted Gould t...@gould.cx wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:17 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
There's one obvious question related to those potential changes: what
will happen to the old way of doing things? For example, will we still
make the GNOME Panel available if,
2009/4/6 Adam Schreiber sa...@clemson.edu:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ted Gould t...@gould.cx wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:17 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
There's one obvious question related to those potential changes: what
will happen to the old way of doing things? For example, will
Hi,
Le jeudi 02 avril 2009, à 11:44 -0400, Willie Walker a écrit :
For developers local to the Boston area, I'm happy to take a visit to
your sight to go over accessibility considerations and to discuss your
new UI's with you from an accessibility standpoint. I promise to focus
solely
During the first few months of 2008, a few Release Team members
discussed here and there about the state of GNOME. This was nothing
official, and it could actually have been considered as some friends
talking together about things they deeply care about. There were
thoughts that GNOME could stay
Hi!
- create a staging area in the platform for libraries that aim to be in
our platform but do not offer enough guarantees at the moment (like
GStreamer): this will send a clear message on what should be used;
- include new exciting technologies that we're starting to see used in
Am Donnerstag, den 02.04.2009, 14:06 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schmid:
What about gconf/dconf? Or in other words - does GNOME 3.0 depend on
dconf and is gconf deprecated (soon!) or not?
No decisions yet, but definitely should be discussed after desrt and/or
robtaylor have posted a follow-up mail
Vincent Untz wrote:
During the first few months of 2008, a few Release Team members
discussed here and there about the state of GNOME. This was nothing
Wow, long interesting email! I'll limit myself to one area:
- Promotion of GNOME
This does seems to be lacking. If you go to
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 02.04.2009, 14:06 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schmid:
What about gconf/dconf? Or in other words - does GNOME 3.0 depend on
dconf and is gconf deprecated (soon!) or not?
No decisions yet, but definitely should be
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Natan Yellin aan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote:
- Changing the way we access documents (via a journal, like GNOME
Zeitgeist [3]): having to deal with a filesystem in their daily work
is not what
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 02.04.2009, 14:06 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schmid:
What about gconf/dconf? Or in other words - does GNOME 3.0 depend on
dconf and is gconf deprecated (soon!) or not?
No decisions yet, but definitely should be
Mike,
We'd love to have your help. We really need help defining what GNOME is to
non-hackers and promoting it appropriately on the website and in
presentations people give. You are right that the about page doesn't
actually say what GNOME is!
The marketing list[1] would be a good place to
2009/4/2 Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org:
- include new exciting technologies that we're starting to see used in
our desktop. Some obvious examples are 3D effects (with Clutter) and
geolocalization (with GeoClue and libchamplain).
Thanks for mentionning libchamplain. Just in case anyone
I'm really excited about GNOME 3.0. There are a lot of great ideas
that people have come up with.
As people work on new GUI designs, I request that people engage the
GNOME accessibility team on their designs. Accessibility is a big
selling point for GNOME and I'd really hate to see it take
78 matches
Mail list logo
