On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:09 -0800, Jeff Waugh wrote: > <quote who="Matthew East"> > > > I'm not sure there is a lot of difference in the purpose: I started off > > thinking that there was a difference between having a "firefox" icon on > > the panel and a "browser" icon on the panel, but I decided that actually, > > the user won't make a distinction: once (s)he has decided to change > > browser, the fact that the developers see the icon on the panel as > > "firefox" rather than "browser" is not gonna justify the fact that (s)he > > has to waste (admittedly not much) time removed and readding the correct > > launcher. > > OK: > > a) that means some icons will change function, fairly unexpectedly because > other icons *won't* change function
But there are only THREE of em: one is a browser, one is email, and one is help. Obviously the user is not gonna change their help browser, but the other two are in the list of preferred applications. I don't think they would change function unexpectedly at all: they would change function (in the sense of opening a different program) precisely because the user told GNOME to change the default browser/mail client. > b) we don't have the infrastructure to do this properly for each function > (trust me, this has been a massive topic of discussion around ISV issues at > the OSDL DTL event) Ok, on this one I trust you of course. > c) we don't have the infrastructure to make the changed state obvious in the > user interface, contributing to (a) See response to (a). > Making the effect and purpose obvious is tightly related in this case, and > we can't do it properly. In the end it'll be you guys' call, and you are best placed to make it, so no arguments there. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-desktop mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
