Re: [Ayatana] option to disable Unity launcher

2011-11-02 Thread Jo-Erlend Schinstad 

Den 02. nov. 2011 06:07, skrev anthropornis:
I suspected that. Naturally, at least 98% of Canonical's new target 
demographic(s) is quite capable of editing the source.




You were talking about Canonical not giving their permission for you to 
have a feature. That is provocative since they grant you all rights to 
change anything you like in any of their products.


Certainly, if I had the know-how, I could just go create my own OS 
from scratch, build my own mobo from scratch, etc. This is Ubuntu, not 
Arch, and yes, everyone knows they can do everything themselves, 
whether it's their operating system, or changing their oil.


But if you acknowledge that these things are not simple, then you must 
also realise that there is a limited number of people who are capable of 
doing these things. When Canonical pays these people to write software 
for you, they have to prioritise. And you asked for software to 
deactivate Canonicals software, didn't you? Does it make sense to you 
that something like that would have a high priority, if they even wanted 
to spend money on it at all?


By the way, I have never claimed that you should program stuff yourself.

In other words,  Jo-Erlend Schinstad had nothing constructive to add. 
Why do people post such unhelpful 


By the way, I have never claimed that you should program stuff yourself. 
I was simply pointing out that Canonical is not denying you anything, 
and when you say "Will Canonical ever permit the user to disable the 
launcher", you are implying that they are. I certainly didn't intend for 
this to become a discussion though.


Have a nice day.

Jo-Erlend Schinstad

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] buttons in file browser

2011-11-02 Thread James Jenner 
On 2 November 2011 16:49, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
wrote:

> Den 02. nov. 2011 06:24, skrev anthropornis:
>
> You have the right to choose exactly how Nautilus will look and feel. As I
> said before, in another thread, you have 100% configurability if you really
> want it. Some users now have to click twice instead of once. That is true.
> But it is also true that a lot more people have gained a simpler and easier
> file manager. It is better to have a default interface that is clean and
> simple, with the ability to add buttons you like, than to start with a
> cluttered interface with the ability to remove.
>
>
Hi Jo-Erlend,

(do you prefer just Jo?)

My understanding is that the configuration for the future is related to
Unity, will this extend to things like Nautilus? Based on what you guys
have been saying,  the file explorer (Nautilus) is from Gnome. I know that
the configuration stuff is low priority and most prob won't be available
until a few versions down the track, just trying to understand if the
configuration stuff is limited to Ayatana (which in my understanding is
effectively Unity).

Cheers,

James.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] option to disable Unity launcher

2011-11-02 Thread Thorsten Wilms 

On 11/01/2011 11:10 PM, Omar B. wrote:

i dont understand his reply either

but i think this would be a better source:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/11/ubuntu-desktop-designers-clarify-on-configurability


But can you trust any of that, with Decepticons at the UDS?
(http://cdn.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/11-1-500x375.jpg)


--
Thorsten Wilms

thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] buttons in file browser

2011-11-02 Thread Jo-Erlend Schinstad 

Den 02. nov. 2011 08:36, skrev James Jenner:


Hi Jo-Erlend,

(do you prefer just Jo?)

I'm usually called Jo-Erlend, but I don't really care that much what you 
call me, as long as you don't call me at home. :)


My understanding is that the configuration for the future is related 
to Unity, will this extend to things like Nautilus? Based on what you 
guys have been saying,  the file explorer (Nautilus) is from Gnome. I 
know that the configuration stuff is low priority and most prob won't 
be available until a few versions down the track, just trying to 
understand if the configuration stuff is limited to Ayatana (which in 
my understanding is effectively Unity).


I were attending remotely, and there was quite a bit of chatter, so I 
couldn't catch everything. My impression, though, was that they were 
talking about the desktop, and that includes more than just Unity. 
However, once you start changing software, the workload increases. 
Because of this, it is very much in the interest of the Ubuntu community 
to stay as close to Gnome as possible. That means what configuration 
options should be available in 12.04, would probably also depend, at 
least in part, on what's accepted into Gnome. Nautilus supports plugins 
and extensions, though, so that might be a better solution than to make 
Nautilus itself more configurable.


But you know, these sessions last one hour, so there's very little room 
to figure out the smallest details. That's not the goal. The goal is to 
figure out what the goals are. What configuration options becomes 
available remains to be seen. Some configuration options are necessary 
and others would be nice. I hope not to see a configuration bonanza 
though. Configuration options are often fairly easy to add, but -- 
obviously -- difficult to remove without making lots of people very 
unhappy. And for something to be configurable, you don't just need a 
checkbox. You need extra features, which necessarily consumes some 
resources.  They also make the desktop more difficult to support. So, 
all in all, I would prefer to see configuration options appear as 
they're proven to be necessary, and not in the hope that they won't be 
useless. In other words, to err on the side of simplicity.


Jo-Erlend Schinstad

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] shortcut - open/focus last program that send a notification

2011-11-02 Thread Jo-Erlend Schinstad 

Den 02. nov. 2011 08:38, skrev staticd:


My 2 cents:
1)As I understand it there are three (what is the fourth?) methods of 
presenting info to the users:
a)Notifications: appear on the screen, don't steal input focus, 
clicking them clicks the background.

b)indicators on the top bar: invite and allow action. always visible.
c)Status data on the sidebar: users look for them.

2)I agree that notifications should not steal input focus. However, 
they will (and are meant to ) get the attention of the user.

How about this Idea:

After a customisable delay(say 2sec) of being displayed the mouse over 
behaviour of the notification changes to show two buttons: one to 
carry out whatever actions are associated with the notification the 
other to banish the notification.


The delay will prevent the accidental clicking of notifications.
The banish button will help get rid of distracting notifications.

See the attached mockup




That wouldn't be a bad idea if the goal was to somehow make the 
notifications actionable. That's not the goal. This would still compel 
the user to react. These notifications are not meant like that. They're 
meant to keep you updated about what's going on and nothing else. You 
can read more about the reasoning here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NotifyOSD


There is a fouth way to notify users, by the way. That's the window 
urgency. When an application calls for attention, it'll come out of the 
launcher, shake and its "window open" arrow will turn blue.


Jo-Erlend Schinstad

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] buttons in file browser

2011-11-02 Thread James Jenner 
On 2 November 2011 18:04, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
wrote:

>
> I'm usually called Jo-Erlend, but I don't really care that much what you
> call me, as long as you don't call me at home. :)
>
>
lol, no worries, I'll make sure I don't do that :-)


>
> I were attending remotely, and there was quite a bit of chatter, so I
> couldn't catch everything. My impression, though, was that they were
> talking about the desktop, and that includes more than just Unity. However,
> once you start changing software, the workload increases. Because of this,
> it is very much in the interest of the Ubuntu community to stay as close to
> Gnome as possible. That means what configuration options should be
> available in 12.04, would probably also depend, at least in part, on what's
> accepted into Gnome. Nautilus supports plugins and extensions, though, so
> that might be a better solution than to make Nautilus itself more
> configurable.
>
>
Ahh, that makes sense. Didn't realise that Nautilus supports
plugins/extensions, good to know. I think I have to spend some time getting
into some dev work on ubuntu related stuff this summer (your winter I
believe), learn the ins and outs and start contributing.


> But you know, these sessions last one hour, so there's very little room to
> figure out the smallest details. That's not the goal. The goal is to figure
> out what the goals are. What configuration options becomes available
> remains to be seen. Some configuration options are necessary and others
> would be nice. I hope not to see a configuration bonanza though.
> Configuration options are often fairly easy to add, but -- obviously --
> difficult to remove without making lots of people very unhappy. And for
> something to be configurable, you don't just need a checkbox. You need
> extra features, which necessarily consumes some resources.  They also make
> the desktop more difficult to support. So, all in all, I would prefer to
> see configuration options appear as they're proven to be necessary, and not
> in the hope that they won't be useless. In other words, to err on the side
> of simplicity.
>
>
Agree with all your points. Personally I tend towards the minimalist
approach as well. My main concern is for infrequent users and for users who
require accessibility considerations. In my experience, accessibility can
be a pain to factor in after the fact. But sounds like plug ins or
extensions could be the way to go for Nautilus.

Thanks for answering my questions Jo-Erlend.

Cheers,

James
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] buttons in file browser

2011-11-02 Thread Jo-Erlend Schinstad 

Den 02. nov. 2011 09:33, skrev James Jenner:
Ahh, that makes sense. Didn't realise that Nautilus supports 
plugins/extensions, good to know. I think I have to spend some time 
getting into some dev work on ubuntu related stuff this summer (your 
winter I believe), learn the ins and outs and start contributing.


Then you should start at http://developer.ubuntu.com and 
http://developer.gnome.org. We have #Ubuntu-app-devel on 
irc.Freenode.net and a mailinglist on 
http://lists.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-app-devel. Except for 
developer.gnome.org, all of these are rather new, so it may take a 
little time for it to become a strong community, but join anyway :)


Jo-Erlend Schinstad

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] shortcut - open/focus last program that send a notification

2011-11-02 Thread James Jenner 
On 2 November 2011 18:11, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
wrote:

>
> That wouldn't be a bad idea if the goal was to somehow make the
> notifications actionable. That's not the goal. This would still compel the
> user to react. These notifications are not meant like that. They're meant
> to keep you updated about what's going on and nothing else. You can read
> more about the reasoning here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NotifyOSD
>
> There is a fouth way to notify users, by the way. That's the window
> urgency. When an application calls for attention, it'll come out of the
> launcher, shake and its "window open" arrow will turn blue.
>
>
Thanks for the link to the wiki Jo-Erlend, I wasn't aware there was that
level of design available in the wiki.

Interestingly, in regards to this conversation, at the end of the wiki
under Unresolved Issues is the following point:

   - Some notifications are communications you need to react upon fx.
   chatmessages. It seems odd that it is not possible to do so via the
   notification. It like saying "Talk to the hand, because the ear's not
   listening" (Hand = the program hidden behind other programs; Ear = the
   notification

So it appears that they have considered this issue and have left it open,
however I do not know the history behind that entry and if it is considered
a valid issue or not (there is no reference to a bug, but then it could be
just a design consideration and not a 'defect' as such).

Reading through the outstanding issues, of primary importance in my mind is
the 'do not disturb' option. This doesn't affect me at home (where I use
Ubuntu) but in a work environment I think this is important. The use case
of doing a presentation and not having im notifications appear is the area
that I'm thinking about. Either way, that's off topic for this
conversation.

Cheers,

James.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] option to disable Unity launcher

2011-11-02 Thread Gino Vincenzini 
For a user who is not a programmer, the investment of time required to
learn the programming language, learn good programming practice, study the
framework documentation, the codebase itself which changes faster than one
can study it, and then write, debug, unit test and deploy the new feature,
then learn how to push the final change upstream in source control, finally
accepting criticism for the change and possibly having to redo the whole
process, the total cost of entry is too high. Learning the language is a
significant investment of time and energy in and of itself even if you're
already a multilingual programmer. I know Ruby, perl, bash, c, c++,
objective-c/++, and I'm learning Java and d and its still a significant
challenge to learn a new language.
I submit to you for this very reason that if no-one has made it a feature
or at least made it possible to do it much easier than writing it yourself,
then they have not "allowed" reasonably for the users to do it. This isn't
to suggest that a developer must allow the user to configure everything,
but most things should be reasonably easy. It should be easy to move the
launcher to the right or bottom, or turn it off in Leu of a replacement, as
it stands, none of these options are provided by unity as written for
distribution. There's a few things I think need reworked at the design
phase for unity and the use of lightdm to make the user experience more
acceptable for power users, but those are for another letter to the mailing
list. The point is that just saying "well, it's open source/free software,
write it yourself!" Is not good enough for end users of what is supposed to
be a consumer product. It may be a great feature that the code is available
for modification, but the vast majority to us users are not going to invest
all the time, energy, and possibly even money to figure out how to write it
ourselves and instead will wait for someone who already has the skill and
knowhow to write it for us.
On Nov 2, 2011 3:36 AM, "Jo-Erlend Schinstad" 
wrote:

>  Den 02. nov. 2011 06:07, skrev anthropornis:
>
> I suspected that. Naturally, at least 98% of Canonical's new target
> demographic(s) is quite capable of editing the source.
>
>
> You were talking about Canonical not giving their permission for you to
> have a feature. That is provocative since they grant you all rights to
> change anything you like in any of their products.
>
>  Certainly, if I had the know-how, I could just go create my own OS from
> scratch, build my own mobo from scratch, etc. This is Ubuntu, not Arch, and
> yes, everyone knows they can do everything themselves, whether it's their
> operating system, or changing their oil.
>
>  But if you acknowledge that these things are not simple, then you must
> also realise that there is a limited number of people who are capable of
> doing these things. When Canonical pays these people to write software for
> you, they have to prioritise. And you asked for software to deactivate
> Canonicals software, didn't you? Does it make sense to you that something
> like that would have a high priority, if they even wanted to spend money on
> it at all?
>
> By the way, I have never claimed that you should program stuff yourself.
>
>  In other words,  Jo-Erlend Schinstad had nothing constructive to add. Why
> do people post such unhelpful
>
>
> By the way, I have never claimed that you should program stuff yourself. I
> was simply pointing out that Canonical is not denying you anything, and
> when you say "Will Canonical ever permit the user to disable the launcher",
> you are implying that they are. I certainly didn't intend for this to
> become a discussion though.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Jo-Erlend Schinstad
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] shortcut - open/focus last program that send a notification

2011-11-02 Thread Jo-Erlend Schinstad 

Den 02. nov. 2011 11:53, skrev James Jenner:


Interestingly, in regards to this conversation, at the end of the wiki 
under Unresolved Issues is the following point:


  * Some notifications are communications you need to react upon fx.
chatmessages. It seems odd that it is not possible to do so via
the notification. It like saying "Talk to the hand, because the
ear's not listening" (Hand = the program hidden behind other
programs; Ear = the notification

That was probably before we got the messaging menu and other category 
indicators, because that's the reason we have them. It may be nice, 
however, if the indicator icon the notification belongs to, were 
slightly altered while the notification was being displayed.
Reading through the outstanding issues, of primary importance in my 
mind is the 'do not disturb' option. This doesn't affect me at home 
(where I use Ubuntu) but in a work environment I think this is 
important. The use case of doing a presentation and not having im 
notifications appear is the area that I'm thinking about. Either way, 
that's off topic for this conversation.


Yes, there is support for that. When you play a video in Totem, for 
instance, trivial notifications are not displayed.


Jo-Erlend Schinstad
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Serious issues

2011-11-02 Thread Andrew Starr-Bochicchio 
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
 wrote:
> We have really serious issues with Unity. For instance, look at the attached
> screenshot.

Not trying to be snide, but I looked at the screenshot and I'm not
sure what the issue is. Could you please explain?

-- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio

   Ubuntu Developer 
   Debian Maintainer

   PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Serious issues

2011-11-02 Thread anthropornis 
Canonical has guaranteed Unity to be 100% issue-free. What you have 
perceived as an issue is actually explained here: 
file:///usr/share/doc/unity/copyright


How awesome is that?


On 11/02/2011 08:50 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote:
We have really serious issues with Unity. For instance, look at the 
attached screenshot.


Jo-Erlend Schinstad


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Serious issues

2011-11-02 Thread Elias K Gardner 
When you have to interact close to the left edge of a window the launcher
can be accidentally activated blocking interaction on that part of the open
window.

The launcher can be made not to popout when the cursor hits the screen side
by installing CompizConfig Settings Manager and changing the Unity plugin's
reveal mode on the behavior tab to "none".

I think this is one setting that should be somewhere in the system settings
out of the box. It is maddening to have to move your cursor out to close
the launcher then carefully back.

Another alternative would be to have a button that when pressed
keeps/closes the launcher (just thinking out loud her not sure its a good
idea, seams to duplicate the super key dash functionality a little).

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
>  wrote:
> > We have really serious issues with Unity. For instance, look at the
> attached
> > screenshot.
>
> Not trying to be snide, but I looked at the screenshot and I'm not
> sure what the issue is. Could you please explain?
>
> -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
>
>   Ubuntu Developer 
>   Debian Maintainer
> 
>   PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Serious issues

2011-11-02 Thread James Jenner 
On 3 November 2011 14:06, Elias K Gardner  wrote:

> When you have to interact close to the left edge of a window the launcher
> can be accidentally activated blocking interaction on that part of the open
> window.
>
> The launcher can be made not to popout when the cursor hits the screen
> side by installing CompizConfig Settings Manager and changing the Unity
> plugin's reveal mode on the behavior tab to "none".
>
> I think this is one setting that should be somewhere in the system
> settings out of the box. It is maddening to have to move your cursor out to
> close the launcher then carefully back.
>
> Another alternative would be to have a button that when pressed
> keeps/closes the launcher (just thinking out loud her not sure its a good
> idea, seams to duplicate the super key dash functionality a little).
>
>
An alternative would be to have a visual interactive control on the
launcher that changes it's state of popout and to not popout. A pin is the
obvious analogy though in reality some form of marker (eg. a small circle
or an arrow or similar) would do the trick, as in to be consistent with the
styling of Unity. Obviously a keyboard shortcut would apply as well.

With such an option when the launcher is hidden, the control to stop it
from popping out would need to be visible, so some thought would be needed
as to where this control sits, how it appears and how a user interacts with
it (both via keyboard and the mouse).

I personally think such an option (to stop it popping out automatically)
isn't such a bad idea.Maybe instead of a "don't popout" control, it could
be a "hide launcher" control.

Just some thoughts. For me personally it hasn't been a problem and I have
no need for such functionality, but then I have a very large screen and
very rarely work full screen within an application. However I can see how
this could be required for certain types of environments and work patterns.

Cheers,
James.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp