-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ryan Prior wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:40 AM, mac_v <drkv...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> use scenarios: >> 1: update manager presents the updates as these notifications , where >> the user reads the info and clicks the notification to bring up the >> update manager, rather than just popping out the update manager. > > This really is an ephemeral thing, not one that should require the > user's immediate attention, so the current notification is sufficient. > ryan, right now there are 3 alternatives to notify-osd>alert boxes, morphing alert boxes & morphing windows . rather than using 3 different ways to present these alerts, just unify these alerts/notifications into a single method that looks as good as the notify-osd, so then all forms of notifications/alerts are covered by just 2 kinds of notifications [notify-osd and the new system] pls check this link [ https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NotificationDesignGuidelines/Comments ] for the notification tags, mockup+screenshots of a persistent notification concept, i think u may better understand what i'm trying to explain here.something similar is required.
updates are ephemeral ONLY when all the programs are working properly, but when some part of the system is broken a notification and a persistent one is definitely required [eg:1>since 9.04 uses the ATI driver for my ATI X1400 i have several X restarts, which have caused me to redo a lot of work , but such updates wont be notified until after 7 days of my previous update ,since they are not security updates(mpt has promised to look into this update classification for the new app centre in 9.10) eg:2>as every update can help/break an app, firefox has slowed drastically over the recent updates but i wont be notified of the next update immediately] 1.the current system of notification of updates is definitely horrible, un-notified window pop-ups is not a good process, 2.i have never noticed the pop-up immediately,usually i notice it after my work is done or when i'm switching desktops. 3.the present behaviour forces me to keep the update manager window open and if i close the update manager the i'm forced to remember about the updates 4.there is no quick access to the updates if dismissed,as was present when the notification area displayed the update icon. 5.pop-ups are a regression since there are more better ways to force updates/clean up notifications area. there have been several complaints/bugs in both launchpad and brainstorm regarding this problem. and the default is set to display ONLY every 7 days which is even worse! and as Matthew Paul Thomas says,the old system definitely makes no sense, so there is a need for a persistent notification system , which allows hyperlinks/actions as allowed by the org.freedesktop.Notifications.GetCapabilities.actions allowed notifications are a good way to implement update notifications >> 2:Window x is requesting attention but the windows list is set to auto >> hide and the blinking is not noticed or the user is using a dock and >> doesnt notice , since hyperlinks/actions are allowed , just clicking >> this notification brings up the window to the front > > This is the window manager's domain -- if the user can't be bothered > by a blinking tab or whatever the window manager decides to provide, > it's not worth creating more annoyance with notifications. > i think u got this wrong. the user * wants * to notice the blinking list but since the user has set the windows list to auto-hide , to utilize the screen better,the blinking is not obvious enough. he has to compromise on missing such notifications. several others dont have the window panel, but instead use the docks for windows list and the blinking of these docks is not good enough to get noticed ideally for window attention notification a time repeated window preview as done by compiz would be nice, but the compiz window preview doesnt allow interactions with the preview, whereas Windows7 has copied the idea and allowed interactions[clicking on the preview brings the window to the front] but to bring all such notification in one spot, an actions allowed notification could be used instead. >> 3:An application is misbehaving, and has to be force quit , >> notification works similarly with just 2 buttons, rather than having a >> window > > Similarly, this is the window manager's delay. A notification to the > effect that an application has stopped responding might be useful, but > one-click force quits are generally not a good idea. > NO, one-clicks force quits are never good, what i was mentioning was a notification that such a window/application is misbehaving is never notified by the system, the user never realizes this app freeze unless the user returns to the desktop where the app was running, this is a huge loss of time, when the user thinks that the app is doing its work in the background or the other desktop but rather has stopped working . if there is a notification, clicking on the notification brings up the app window along with the force quit dialogue , this way such unresponsive apps dont unnecessarily eat away the system resources or waste time. >> 4: file copying/moving/deleting , notifications with the cancel action >> button can be used , these operation dont require window with a >> metacity frame, when there is already a button for cancel within the >> window , a close on the window frame in not required. > > Perhaps a better solution for tracking in-progress actions than > metacity windows is needed, but a notification is not the needed > solution. A notification could be sent upon successful completion of a > transfer, though. > i was more concerned about the large file operations. the method the Ubuntu uses for file operations notifications is by 2 ways, one is by using the metacity window and second is the notification area where an unnecessary icon shows up on such copy/paste/move. when notifications area was cleaned up why wasnt this removed?while update notifier was! such notifications are needed since there is a problem with system performance when file operations are going on, for eg: there is a huge drop in firefox performance and it drastically slows down during these file operations, so user notifications using these notifications would be good. to serve as a user reminder to not open more programs which might cause program freezes and system hangs. >> 5: synaptic manager/update manager open in first desktop has finished >> the updates/installation , rather than popping up the child window in >> the present desktop and disturbing the user, the child window remains >> in the first desktop while the attention request is shown in the >> notification, again clicking the notification changes the desktop to >> the synaptic/update manager.[the child window of the update >> manager/synaptic by the way is not even shown in the window list and >> in order to notice the child window the rest of the window have to be >> minimized, this is an irritating behaviour] > > I think you're right here, it would be a better policy to have the > update manager give a notification saying "all updates complete" > rather than popping up. However, I see no reason why the user would > want to click that notification and go directly to the update manager > -- it's doing no harm by just sitting there until the user decides to > close it. > well, i agree with ur assessment that notify-osd could be used for this, but there present system of opening child windows in the current desktop and disturbing the user needs to be looked into. notify-osd can be used to notify the synaptic process completions. >> 6:Someone is offering to send you a file over the local network , >> accept/decline it. > > This definitely should not use the notification system, as it needs > immediate user attention and a decision. A pop-up window, or use of > some other to-be-developed user interaction subsystem, should be used > instead. > this is similar to file operations, there is usually drop in system performance about the time such transfers are happening, so using the notification tags , accept the transfer and >> there can be so many system applications which this >> actions-allowed-system-notifications can be used for. > > Can be, but IMO should not be. The reasoning behind the change to > system-notifications is pretty solid: notifications should not create > an imperative to act to act except in exceptional cases, and those > exceptional cases should use something other than a notification > bubble. > > Thanks for your input, and please tell me if I misjudge your use cases > above. I really think we should focus more on finding better places > for actual urgent notifications that are currently using little > notification bubbles. > > Ryan Prior > i do understand the team is focusing on refining the notify-osd. as mark has asked for the notify-osds to be color tagged and properly identified, this would be a good time to identify all other notifications which do/do not require actions and simplify the notifications. Also by doing so the OS would look more organized. cheers, mac_v -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoBvIEACgkQ8QR4RbuR48BrOwCdH6yxv2GHPa5YxcNI0ICXOiHU LpAAn3MsmGcstFj7YGUPK2iNloL3BLU1 =N2hn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
