Webmaster, Jhnet.co.uk wrote: > "I also think the addition of the power off button on the main bar is > also silly > for the same reasons - your only ever going to use it max once per > session." > No, it is something very valuable, though only really on mobile or > public systems: when I am using my laptop it allows me to quickly > throw it in to suspend or lock the screen when I walk away. It is > something that I have found many users come to love once they get used > to it being there (for the most part the ability to lock, suspend or > switch user is handy (especially in a school-like or family > environment). While the user switcher is probably necessary I do feel > the power button is a worth while addition, especially given that we > are taking up a solid 24 odd pixels of the users screen that, lets > face it, do very little more than provide a launcher, clock and status > items. (I am not debating the need for the top panel, things > definitely become crowded all squashed into the bottom, but this area > should be utilized better.) To be honest the hate I have for the power-off button is mainly due to the fact it's an ugly blob. If it was a bit more elegant and discreet I would probably have less problems with it.
Is the Windows key not used on Ubuntu still? One of the nice things about Windows is WIN+L locks the computer (WIN+D is minimise all). I also generally set the power button my laptop to hibernate and just use that. I do see how the power button may be of use to other people though. Maybe make it look nicer and put it in the system tray? It could also then handle power settings and other bits and bobs. > "As an example from Windows XP, the 'new style' Start box has on the left > hand side a list of your most commonly used applications. I've set it > to display 12 at once and you can pin items to it permanently. As a > result if you use an app more than a couple of times in future is never > more than two clicks away with no need to scan a list for it." > I agree this is definitely a useful function that would be nice to see > however given how well organized a typical gnome Applications menu is > compared to a windows all programs menu (without any user > intervention) it becomes less important. While teaching basic > computing skills to elderly people (I run classes for a charity called > Age Concern) I find that many are confused as to why their programs > sometimes appear in the frequently used list, why they move and why > all the programs they need are not there. In this scenario, well named > and *subject categorized* (not manufacturer or application suite > organized) programs lists are a generally good idea. What would be > nice is a way of making it more obvious that they can add their own > applications to the top bar to allow single click access to them and > to make use of the space there rather than ending up like windows' > quick launch that many people do not realize can actually be added to. > > Just some thoughts With regards to your Age Concern example - and I have tried to teach old people computing - it's a difficult task - but it sounds like the problem isn't due to the idea being flawed but instead the implementation of the idea being flawed. The task is to implement the idea in such a way as to avoid the problem you have stated. I am a massive proponent of usability, but I am also heavily against dumbing down and definitely do not believe in catering for the lowest common denominator. While all effort must be made to make a system as intuitive and useful as possible I do not believe that you should remove or not include useful additions simply because a minority may have problems initially with them. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
