But earlier when we discussed that option we came to the conclusion that it
would make a very uninteresting and plain launcher. But I guess I could just
change a few settings in the mockup to be able to test the result. I will
look into that tomorrow.
2011/5/6 cmaglothin
> I mean instead of "fad
Why don't you try reversing the action, just as Jamu says, fading does seem
a bit backwards.
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist <
niklas.s.rosenqv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since this doesn't seem to be the best solution for everyone I hope we can
> work together on making a new desig
Since this doesn't seem to be the best solution for everyone I hope we can
work together on making a new design sketch which works. I will try a few
different approaches and I hope that people will pitch in with their own
ideas. Thanks guys for your feedback!
2011/5/6 Jamu Kakar
> Hi Niklas,,
>
Hi Niklas,,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> "But please tell me one reason why increasing the visibility of the
> background of running apps isn't just as good in terms of visibility
> with the added benefit of being always visible, not just on hover,
> i.e. more consi
I don't think he was talking about the initial fade you get after
selecting your first app, where you would be moving away like you
said.
For me, the distraction is when you have an app running
already, and then go back to the bar to hover over a diff app and
it fades again (unless firefox is mang
> > http://unity-mockup.nsrosenqvist.com/
> > Source:
> > http://unity-mockup.nsrosenqvist.com/source/unity-mockup.zip
> The idea of having the boxes around the icons be clear when not
> running and colored when running is a good one. the fading bit is
> too distracting.
I also found the fading t
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> "But please tell me one reason why increasing the visibility of the
> background of running apps isn't just as good in terms of visibility
> with the added benefit of being always visible, not just on hover,
> i.e. more consistent and mor
Is it really? I mean you won't keep staring at the launcher when you've
launched the application you wanted, right? Try the launcher again and then
move away the focus of your eyes to the middle of the screen where your
application probably will popup, try imagining it in a real life situation.
20
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 20:31, Spike Burch wrote:
> The idea of having the boxes around the icons be clear when not
> running and colored when running is a good one. the fading bit is too
> distracting.
Another approach for showing which applications are started could
be to decrease the icon size
The idea of having the boxes around the icons be clear when not
running and colored when running is a good one. the fading bit is too
distracting.
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> "But please tell me one reason why increasing the visibility of the
> background of runnin
"But please tell me one reason why increasing the visibility of the
background of running apps isn't just as good in terms of visibility
with the added benefit of being always visible, not just on hover,
i.e. more consistent and more usable."
The reason for why I don't think that's such a good id
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> I think it would be a shame to desaturate the applications which aren't
> running at all times. If you have the launcher set to always visible and
> only one application running then it would look dark and boring, don't you
> think?
Not o
I think it would be a shame to desaturate the applications which aren't
running at all times. If you have the launcher set to always visible and
only one application running then it would look dark and boring, don't you
think? And as I said in my previous post, I can't really see the use in
showing
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> Is it really necessary to indicate which windows are hidden? I mean if you
> cannot see it you can assume that it's hidden or somewhere else. Even if it
> is hidden, it can still be accessed with alt+tab or super+("S" is it? I'm
> not on a
Is it really necessary to indicate which windows are hidden? I mean if you
cannot see it you can assume that it's hidden or somewhere else. Even if it
is hidden, it can still be accessed with alt+tab or super+("S" is it? I'm
not on a Ubuntu machine at the moment) so there is a minimal practical
dif
Version 0.3:
http://i.imgur.com/O7cfm.png
Sorry...
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ed Lin wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist
> wrote:
>> Can't we continue the discussion here since we are already arguing here?
>
> I think we should split it then, change the subject to so
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> Can't we continue the discussion here since we are already arguing here?
I think we should split it then, change the subject to something like
improving Unity for window-centric workflow (was: Idea for improving
visibility of running app
Hi.
I can't use Compiz, because I'm using Via driver and there is no DRI support.
I'm using Unity-2d.
What do you think to implement this feature for Unity-2d?
Best Regards
Bartosz
2011/5/3 Niklas Rosenqvist :
> Yes, it already exists. You only need to install CompizConfig Settings
> Manager (C
Ed Lin I apologize for the rudeness of my latests replies. The reason behind
it was that I was getting frustrated of you just pointing out weaknesses
without any proposed solutions except for doing it as Gnome Shell. As I
said about the feature request am I new to this community and wasn't sure
ab
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> This debate is getting rather heated, and I'm getting quoted and
> rephrased a fair bit. Let me take this opportunity to clarify both
> what I actually think:
>
> Unity is supposed to be considered 'application-centric'.
...
> This model isn't for
This debate is getting rather heated, and I'm getting quoted and
rephrased a fair bit. Let me take this opportunity to clarify both
what I actually think:
Unity is supposed to be considered 'application-centric'. In a truly
application-centric system (see iPhones, for example) there is
absolutely
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> "What you suggested is a far reaching, non-default behavior "option"
> and I still fail to see the point of it."
>
> That is because you still haven't read the discussion...
I've read every mail of it, I think even twice, just to make su
"What you suggested is a far reaching, non-default behavior "option"
and I still fail to see the point of it."
That is because you still haven't read the discussion...
"I'm not sure that would work very well: the default launcher would end
up this ugly grey strip since no programs are run when y
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> Seriously aren't you understanding what we've been talking about? Most of us
> agree on that the current implementation is working fine for the default
> Ubuntu installation but Ubuntu is very open when it comes to configuration
> and it i
Yes, it already exists. You only need to install CompizConfig Settings
Manager (CCSM) from Ubuntu Software Center and go to the Unity plugin and
set the background lighting to toggle :)
2011/5/3 Bartosz
> Hi All.
> Thanks Niklas for this great mockup.
>
> The first/most left screen is what I wou
Hi All.
Thanks Niklas for this great mockup.
The first/most left screen is what I would like to create in Unity.
I didn't think about fading icons.
Currently my desktop look like this:
http://di.com.pl/pic/photo/oryginal/launcher_1304076215.jpg
With opened Firefox, Writer, Shotwell and GIMP, it i
"More options that change the most fundamental and basic functionality of
Unity?
I strongly disagree this approach is the way forward. The objectively
best solution should be default. The only goal of Unity should be to
come as close to that as humanly possible. That's why I also don't go
into CCSM
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> There you just pointed to the exact problem I'm trying to address! If you
> look at the first frame of the mockup you see the current setup, the
> programs that are running have an illuminated background together with the
> arrow on the le
I can't give any response to that since it's not really my area :) But I
just wanted to inform that I filled out a feature request! I hope it is in
the right forum:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/776485
2011/5/3 Ian Santopietro
> In that case, maybe taking another cue from Android would b
In that case, maybe taking another cue from Android would be apt. Don't
remove applications from RAM unless they aren't running. Then, automatically
remove older ones to make room for newly launched apps. That might help
improve performance on older systems anyway.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 09:27, Ni
I personally like to know what's running and what's not. That way I can
terminate unwanted applications in case I should need more RAM or reduce the
load on the CPU. By the user knowing what applications are running you give
him the freedom to do what he wants with them. I don't think it should be
I would argue that a user shouldn't need to know what's running. If they
want to work with an application, they switch to it, running or not, and it
comes back as they left it, running or not. It's a distinctly mobile thing
to do, and it is probably not technically feasible right now, but think
abo
This is probably the best way
https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+filebug
Attach the screenshot to the bug report.
Cheers,
James Gifford
http://jamesrgifford.com
On 05/03/2011 10:08 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist wrote:
> How would I do that? I've never done that before :)
>
> 2011/5/3 James Gifford
Ed Lin please review the comments and answers I've provided:
"You can't see what's running at a glance without hovering the
launcher. Why? Does it make sense for the user? Does it increase
usability? I doubt so, it's just for aesthetic reasons."
There you just pointed to the exact problem I'm tr
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
> wrote:
>> Here I have the finished mockup of how this configurable feature could
>> work. For the future, what is the best way to share images with the
>> ayatana mailing list? Is it by attaching the image to the email or
>> upload it like I've
How would I do that? I've never done that before :)
2011/5/3 James Gifford
> Nicely done. I like it. If someone can add a "feature request bug
> report", I'd mark myself as being affected.
>
> Cheers,
> James Gifford
> http://jamesrgifford.com
>
> On 05/03/2011 08:13 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist wrote:
Nicely done. I like it. If someone can add a "feature request bug
report", I'd mark myself as being affected.
Cheers,
James Gifford
http://jamesrgifford.com
On 05/03/2011 08:13 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist wrote:
> Here I have the finished mockup of how this configurable feature could
> work. For the fu
How we do that? I've never done this before :)
2011/5/3 Toki Tahmid
> I second Evan's opinion. I hope we can somehow register a feature-request
> bug.
>
>
> On 3 May 2011 16:33, Evan Huus wrote:
>
>> I can't speak for anyone else, but I quite like the look of it.
>>
>> Regarding images, you did
I second Evan's opinion. I hope we can somehow register a feature-request
bug.
On 3 May 2011 16:33, Evan Huus wrote:
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I quite like the look of it.
>
> Regarding images, you did the right thing. Sending it as an attachment
> is slow since the mail server has to
I can't speak for anyone else, but I quite like the look of it.
Regarding images, you did the right thing. Sending it as an attachment
is slow since the mail server has to copy the file to every single
person on the list. Uploading it elsewhere and providing a link is
best.
Cheers,
Evan
On Tue,
Here I have the finished mockup of how this configurable feature could
work. For the future, what is the best way to share images with the
ayatana mailing list? Is it by attaching the image to the email or
upload it like I've done now?
Here is the link:
http://i.imgur.com/bnIAE.png
2011/5/3 Nikla
Yeah me too, I will get working on a mockup tomorrow so that it's easier
to imagining the end result!
On 03/05/11 01:11, Evan Huus wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
Well what about making it toggle on the cursor hovering the launcher? And
maybe resaturate (maybe
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> Well what about making it toggle on the cursor hovering the launcher? And
> maybe resaturate (maybe partially) the current hovered item?
So it's saturated normally, but when the mouse moves over it only
running programs (and maybe the hov
Well what about making it toggle on the cursor hovering the launcher?
And maybe resaturate (maybe partially) the current hovered item?
On 02/05/11 23:57, Evan Huus wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
I just read Bartosz mail about that the running applications are
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> I just read Bartosz mail about that the running applications aren't always
> so easy to see and got an idea. Some icon sets, like Faenza which I use, is
> very colorful and since the icons are squared they almost fill the whole
> icon plac
45 matches
Mail list logo