In the process of writing this, I realised the problem I have with applications closing to the tray is that it makes the consequences of closing windows inconsistent.
* Closing the only window for a non-tray application causes the application to quit. * Closing the only window for a tray application does not cause the application to quit. * Most applications are not tray applications so their non-quitting behaviour is inconsistent with the majority. Consider: if you've just opened an application that you've never used before, what would you expect to happen if you closed its window? So I think the thing that causes usability problems is actually inconsistent exiting behaviour. If applications never exited when their last window was closed, this wouldn't be a problem. (Incidentally, I think this is the approach Mac OS X takes.) Of course, that doesn't solve the messy task-list, but a dock would. My original email: On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 15:56 -0600, Jeremy Nickurak wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 15:27, Frederik Nnaji > <frederik.nn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Isn't the ordinary user's mental concept of closing the window > via a red X rather closely related with quitting? For me this is definitely the case. I close windows by clicking the x in the title bar, and if that's the only window open for that application, the application exists as well. Empathy breaks that model. And there have been a few times that I've closed the Empathy contacts window thinking I will go offline only to be caught out by its unexpected behaviour. > Hitting "close" on one web browser window doesn't terminate the > web-browser process, and the other windows associated with it. It does if its the only window. > In the case of Empathy, I've (gradually, and begrudgingly) come around > to the idea that the messaging menu *is* the application, and the > "Contact List" window is just a dialog box that lets me interact with > it. I'm starting to think the same about rhythmbox, but its UI is > complicated enough that it's tricky. Evolution is another several > steps of complexity above that. I get the concept--a line in the sand that separates services from applications. I just don't think of Empathy as a service. In my mind services are things I set-up and leave. I interact with Empathy (and Rhythmbox, Evolution, etc) frequently, so they not services. But what makes a service and what doesn't isn't well defined (not as far as I'm aware) which will lead different people to make different assumptions about which is which. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
