> > Keeping open apps in the system tray (with that do you mean notification > area, top panel right, really?) is one of the _worst_ desktop metaphors. > Notification area is... notification area! >
I call it tray. IMHO calling the tray "notification area" is one of the worst things. > Why mixing open apps with notification icons like clock, wifi, volume...? > Clock? Volume? I got these as gnome applets. And wifi: Do you think the "NetworkManager" is a notification? It isn't. But why is it in the "notification" area? I got 4 icons in my tray: Skype, Pidgin, Rhythmbox, Glipper (and NetworkManager). There isn't a single notification. > I think that this ideas comes from a very _very_ strong Windows culture. > So what? > And Ubuntu is not an should not be a clon of Windows XP (OS X clon > either). > Right, but do you also want to remove windows at all, just because osx and xp use them? > If Windows or Mac does something well, we can discuss it and if it's a > good idea we can implement it. But we don't have to copy something because > new users would feel familiar with Ubuntu desktop, that would be a big > mistake. > AFAIK there's no option to close programs to tray, except the application supports this. So there's nothing to be copied from windows. > Taking back the discussion. 6 or 7 years ago I was a convinced Windows > 98/XP user. I loved Winamp, I loved Winamp icon in the tray bar. Nowadays, a > lot of Windows applications put their icon in the system tray. > A lot of Linux applications, too. (Rhythmbox, banshee, amarok, pidgin, skype, networkmanager, deluge, ...) > Nowadays I've studied computer science and gui design in my career. One of > the big mistakes of user interfaces is mixing things that are completely not > related. Notification is not related with open apps. > Well, maybe we should call it tray or Status Area? > What Dylan McCall was trying to say is that in OS X there is a tree > structure in the gui design. Root node is the application and then each > application has several childrens (windows) and each window can have another > children (floating window). In my opinion this is the correct way to > represent open apps. Why? because the app "pipe" is: > > Processes -> Windows -> Secondary windows > > > This pipe design delivers a good design that solves several gui problems. > First problem solved is that window selector like Windows bar is no longer > needed. Instead, this model has app selector, wich is very useful if some > apps have several windows (think in The Gimp at this moment). Second problem > is that having app selector instead window selector is better if you have a > lot (6 or more) windows opened. It's even easier to distinguish what do you > want to select because you have to look directly for the application, not to > all the windows, and you have less items to look for so you can search it > quickly. Third problem solved is that now app selector and app launcher can > be merged so many space can be saved. App selector? Sounds like some kind of a tray, only better.
-- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
