On 3/2/06, Matthew Paul Thomas <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> ...
> My Dad frequently stumbles over choosing between plain "log out" and
> "switch user", especially when somebody else happens to want to use
> the computer as he has finished.
>
> Since locking the screen already has switch user functionality and
> switching users already has locking the screen functionality, wouldn't
> it make sense to merge switch user into the "Lock Screen" item in the
> System menu?
That would solve your father's problem, but at the expense of making
switching extremely difficult to find. I rather think the item needs to
be renamed to express the idea that it's *temporary* switching. "Switch
User" is awful, awful wording.
I agree, the wording isn't great. I think also that the whole idea is difficult because it isn't obvious how to get back to the original user:
could we add a dialogue on switching saying 'this will keep your current session running and allow another user to log on as well. In order to return to this session log out of the new one or push ctrl+alt+f[x]"
Also, I notice when you log out of a second user session the lock screen (or unlock screen) dialogue only appears when you move the mouse - I thought it had crashed first time round...
snippety snip
> ...
> As even an advanced user, I was stumped as to what the difference was
> between "Sleep" and "Hibernate" before I googled. Could "Hibernate" be
> renamed to "Power Down (hibernate)", "Sleep" to "Standby (sleep)", and
> "Shut Down" to "Full System Shut Down". Or something like that? Users
> should normally just hibernate, and I think this name change would
> make that obvious.
In the medium term, the difference between "Sleep" and "Hibernate"
should be abolished by letting Sleep suspend to disk *and* to RAM. So
if you have power, waking up works quickly; and if you lose power for
any reason, waking up still works. (This would also lessen the need to
maintain lists of hardware for which the "Sleep" command should or
should not be available.)
I think tooltips to explain the options would allow the interface to remain clean. It _definitely_ needs to be clearer which option does what - my Breezy-endowed family will struggle with this (and given that sleep does some nasty stuff here probably have an unpleasant experience)
In the long term, the difference between "Sleep" and "Shut Down" could
be abolished the same way: the computer could automatically turn itself
off once it had been sleeping for a configurable period.
I think we still need a direct shut down option to ensure people can reset everything, rather than find they thought they were shutting down but application x is still doing weird behaviour y like it was before
I don't really know the policy for snipping signatures, sorry
Who
- --
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFEBkz36PUxNfU6ecoRAtdlAKCL5HH1rcg/ZOnFbRz21nLT4PaShgCg0GlX
pYymUWEghanW7BOjPx+E4CA=
=Hvz/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
-- ubuntu-desktop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
