On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> I see four major problems with hiding the menus and covering them with
> an application or window title.
>
> 1. Most importantly, it makes the menus much harder to use.
>
> 2. It makes some functions effectively invisible.
>
The ab
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Gian wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> that's my first time posting here, so hi! :)
>
> I think the proposed solutions of a 2-sided launcher have a great advantage
> over the current implementation: currently on large monitors the places
> shortcuts may end well below t
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Carl Simpson wrote:
> My concern is that the functionality of changing the volume of Banshee
> moves about quite a bit. It does this in two ways:
> 1) It moves from place to place in the interface- namely between the panel
> and the window decoration of Banshee.
I have also previously suggested the idea of widgets in Unity, as an
alternative to the current, rather empty desktop.
Since widgets are simply ways of looking at content, not interacting with
the operating system, I think web-tech based widget system would be optimal.
This way, content could be e
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Carl Simpson wrote:
> Can we can assume from this that per-application functions, such as volume
> control and network status, wont be tenable uses of the windicator idea,
> since this would result in duplicates (e.g., two volume controls) or
> confusingly similar
There might have already been discussion about this, and this issue might
have been resolved, but I would just like to make sure.
Currently, when using compiz-unity, the top panel shows the application name
by default, and the menu only when I fade over it. For me, at least, this
causes some confu
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Mark Curtis wrote:
> Unity requires 3d compositing. For those without adequate hardware, it
> falls back to the GNOME Panels. While I understand for this cycle effort
> should be put into getting Unity functioning, I think for the future a
> better fallback sh
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 7:48 PM, frederik.nn...@gmail.com <
frederik.nn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the excellent material guys!
> While this work was mainly about folders and not about files, i've been
> able to extract some insights, that might be of relevant to this thread..
>
> On Wed, N
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:23 PM, frederik.nn...@gmail.com <
frederik.nn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hello there,
>
> thinking about the File menu, it has become clear to me that the known
> approach is the best:
> replace "File" with either [Application Name] or alternatively, as
> Rhythmbox does it, a
9 matches
Mail list logo
