On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 at 11:30:59 +0100, Iain Patterson wrote: > Quoth Carlos R. Mafra, > > >But at least for me it makes sense to keep 'bouncing' under the > >'animations' option, as bouncing something is a prime example > >of an "animation", no? > > The other animations are user initiated. If I minimise a window > it flips over and vanishes, for example. Bouncing is controlled by > the application demanding attention.
Ok, but note that now there are two types of bouncing then: 1. When an application starts (original bounce patch) 2. When an application wants attention (XUrgencyHint patch) So I'd guess you are fine with 1. because the user initiated it. > At the moment I'd have to kill a feature I always liked in > order to turn off an unwanted new feature. > > Clearly lots of people do want this type of notification and they > should of course have it. I just don't like it being tied to > something else when someone might want one but not the other. So you like the animations but, in principle, not for the urgency hint and want to have 'animations' but not 'urgency'. If everyone is to be satisfied, then there should be another independent config option "Bounce appicon on XUrgencyHint request" in the "Expert Panel" of WPrefs. Would you be fine with that? Would you consider writing such a patch if you really don't like the urgency bouncing stuff? I guess others would be fine with this solution. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
