It's funny because I was going to post to this mailing list last week about the same time and there was some sort of error, and I didn't get my list access until just today. Anyway, it's weird that we picked up on the same "problem" but postulated different reasons why. Here's my take:
This is a copy of a message I sent to ubuntu-devel-discuss last month. After Matthew Paul Thomas' post on the Canonical Design blog (http://design.canonical.com/2010/04/notification-area/), other users expressed similar sentiments to my mailing list message. I was just curious if Ayatana members had any additional thoughts. I understand that many of you are also subscribers to ubuntu-devel-discuss, so I apologize if you're getting this message twice. I've also added some more thoughts after the break. - It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close has since been minimized to my system tray (or notification area or its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of quitting). Examples of programs with this behavior include Rhythmbox and Empathy in the default nstall. To me, the 'X' signifies closing and quitting the application. If I wanted to minimize it and keep it open, I would think to click the 'Minimize' button before clicking the 'X'. In fact, I'd argue that the only reason anyone thinks this is appropriate is because it's what's been done in the past. The reason I find this so frustrating is because in order for me to eXit an application, I have to go searching through menus (File->Quit) or know some fancy keyboard shortcuts (things that casual users never even think about). I can only assume that developers' theories behind this (which is definitely not a problem unique to Ubuntu) stem from them telling themselves that no one would actually want to Quit their application. "What they *really* mean to do is close the window, but keep the application running silently. So I'll just save them the trouble of accidentally quitting by changing the function of that 'X' button." I just dislike the fact that it sends mixed signals. After all, if I click 'X' in Firefox or in gEdit or in a whole host of other applications, I'm quitting and completely closing it. Why must this be different in Rhythmbox? And also, when I install a new application, what is the 'X' going to do when I click it in this application? I'm not exactly sure what I'd propose to fix this problem. I really just think that the current way is broken. Maybe the function could be switched to the Minimize button, but that would likewise exhibit ambiguity, although I'd argue less so than the current incarnation. Maybe there should be a new window button, but that doesn't seem like a very elegant solution either. I thought about filing this as a bug, but then I thought it might be better to generate discussion amongst developers. What are your thoughts? Do you consider the current situation a problem? If so, what do you propose to fix it? Cheers, Jonathan - After some discussion on ubuntu-devel-discuss, I do understand that the 'X' means "close the current window" and it's up to the application to decide whether it "makes sense" to keep running in the notification area (or its indicator applet). It's definitely is nice to let something such as Rhythmbox or Empathy run without needing the window open. I outlined 2 of my biggest concerns later: The current behavior can cause a number of problems. As other users pointed out (and I have also experienced), sometimes you want to quit an application, such as Empathy or Gwibber, only later to find yourself still logged in, online, and maybe receiving messages. Another issue is with Rhythmbox. This is especially true for newer users. Let's say I just click the 'X' to quit, just like I do with Firefox or Calculator. I don't notice that the icon is still present in the Notification Area. It's not doing any particular harm there right now. However, then I shut down my computer and come back the next day. I open Rhythmbox, and it starts minimized to the Notification Area. I'm sitting there waiting patiently for it to open, but it never does. Now you could argue that this is a bug in Rhythmbox (and it has been reported), but my point is that it highlights an underlying problem of an application not quitting when the user wants it to. I guess I'd summarize my concern as: 1. It should be possible to completely quit an application by clicking a single button on the window controls. 2. When you're not completely quitting an application, that fact should be unambiguous to the user. 3. If an application is going to start solely in the Notification Area (or Indicator Applet) without opening a window, the user should know and expect that's going to happen and know where/how to open the application's window should they need to. After reading Mark's post last week (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/333) I began to wonder whether this was a great opportunity for his Windicators. For example, something like the "eye" button seems like it would be an interesting way to "hide" a window, but still have the application accessible via its indicator applet. Cheers, Jonathan _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
