Wouldn't it be great if maximize could be remapped to "Take up a whole new
activity, and let that activity take focus."
--
Saleel
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Here's a great post by Ivanka Majic regarding the button order to
further the discussion:
http://www.ivankamajic.com/?p=281
-Chris
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
I would like to understand the rational behind the change too.
It appears to violate the usability quality of compatibility because users
of other systems (even previous version of Ubuntu) cannot use their
previously learnt experience.
Additionally it violates the quality of coherence because th
I don't suppose we could have some clarification for this change? What
was the reasoning behind it?
I'm still trying to work out how adding an extra obstacle to Windows
users is going to help in Ubuntu adoption...
Luke.
P.S. The response I've received about the change from non-technical
family m
Changing for the sake of changing is absolutely absurd. Although I am
(hopefully) sure that there was a reasoning behind the change, it seems
without rationale.
I agree, let's pick an audience and serve them well. Everyone is impossible
and certainly (too) ambitious.
Changing sides AND order is c
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
>
> What now feels to be an eternity ago, Mark Shuttleworth in a Community
> Council session, http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2008/09/02/%
> 23ubuntu-meeting.html:
>
> 22:09 in terms of audience, i think we have to aim for young
> professionals who
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 08:36 +, Luke Benstead wrote:
>
> > The bug is the ordering of the minimize and maximize buttons which
> > have been swapped for no obvious reason, (...)
>
> It's rather that there is no obvious reason to have Minim
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 08:36 +, Luke Benstead wrote:
> The bug is the ordering of the minimize and maximize buttons which
> have been swapped for no obvious reason, (...)
It's rather that there is no obvious reason to have Minimize, Maximize,
Close, as Minimize and Close have more in common.
On 6 March 2010 00:59, David Zondlo wrote:
> While I am super used to buttons-on-right I think I'm the only one who is
> digging the change to the left. Google chrome is still messing with me since
> its not decorated by metacity. Might have to go back to FF :P
> ~Dave
> --
> ubuntu-art mailing li
While I am super used to buttons-on-right I think I'm the only one who is
digging the change to the left. Google chrome is still messing with me since
its not decorated by metacity. Might have to go back to FF :P
~Dave
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.co
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:48 PM, SorinN wrote:
> Yes. What was to happen was happened :(
>
> Very much amateurism on this change (right corner to left corner for
> close / minimize / maximize buttons). Yes amateurism - you hear well
> my friends. A good Human Machine Interaction engineer will not
On 3/5/10, Nate Wiebe wrote:
>
> At first I was very sceptical about having them on the right but I decided
> to give it a shot. After using the buttons on the left for a few hours, it
> feels very natural since I am usually focused on the left hand side of the
> screen to begin with, so it makes
At first I was very sceptical about having them on the right but I decided to
give it a shot. After using the buttons on the left for a few hours, it feels
very natural since I am usually focused on the left hand side of the screen to
begin with, so it makes sense why the side was changed.
I a
Yes. What was to happen was happened :(
Very much amateurism on this change (right corner to left corner for
close / minimize / maximize buttons). Yes amateurism - you hear well
my friends. A good Human Machine Interaction engineer will not do such
a move. There are laws and principles. Some Unix
Fine we shouldn't do something just because OS X or Windows does it.
But what was the research done to show that left aligned, maximize,
minimize, close was the best option?
Without explanation, it just feels arbitrary and change for the sake of
change.
Richard Querin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 5
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 21:45, Chris Tooley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Alin-Andrei
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 21:34, Chris Tooley wrote:
> >> I don't think the theme is going to directly affect other themes. As
> >> far as I can remember (correct me if I'm wrong), the but
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Alin-Andrei wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 21:34, Chris Tooley wrote:
>> I don't think the theme is going to directly affect other themes. As
>> far as I can remember (correct me if I'm wrong), the button layout is
>> an option you can set with gnome config. I c
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 21:34, Chris Tooley wrote:
> I don't think the theme is going to directly affect other themes. As
> far as I can remember (correct me if I'm wrong), the button layout is
> an option you can set with gnome config. I certainly know it's an
> option for emerald anyway.
A ver
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Luke Benstead wrote:
> I don't know if this has been mentioned/noticed, but this change of
> default effectively breaks a *load* of metacity themes, including
> Dust, Dust Sand and New Wave and probably hundreds more on
> gnome-look.org. Also Radiance and Ambiance
I don't know if this has been mentioned/noticed, but this change of
default effectively breaks a *load* of metacity themes, including
Dust, Dust Sand and New Wave and probably hundreds more on
gnome-look.org. Also Radiance and Ambiance also don't display properly
in the theme dialog, but obviously
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:07 -0500, Richard Querin wrote:
> Of course all of this design stuff depends on who Ubuntu is being
> aimed at. Is that documented somewhere?
What now feels to be an eternity ago, Mark Shuttleworth in a Community
Council session, http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2008/09/02/%
23
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Dana Goyette wrote:
> Not only are the buttons on the left, but they're not even correct for
> "buttons on the left"!
>
> What OS X has:close, minimize, maximize : menu
> What we have: maximize, minimize, close : menu
> What Windows has: menu : minimize, m
> Not only are the buttons on the left, but they're not even correct for
> "buttons on the left"!
> What OS X has:close, minimize, maximize : menu
> What we have: maximize, minimize, close : menu
> What Windows has: menu : minimize, maximize, close
>
> As it is right now, the theme will br
ar 5, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Mark Curtis
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just curious, what is the thought behind the change?
>>>>> As in, why is it deemed better to change the order?
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: kw...@ubuntu.com
>
avior, for no obvious benefit?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Mark Curtis
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just curious, what is the thought behind the change?
>>>> As in, why is it deemed better to change the order?
>>>>
>>&
it deemed better to change the order?
>>>
>>> > From: kw...@ubuntu.com
>>> > To: ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
>>> > Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:17:05 +
>>> > CC: bae...@gmail.com
>>> > Subject: Re: [ubuntu-art] Metacity Bu
i, 5 Mar 2010 11:17:05 +0000
>> > CC: bae...@gmail.com
>> > Subject: Re: [ubuntu-art] Metacity Button Order Changed
>>
>> >
>> > On Friday 05 March 2010 01:43:43 am John Baer wrote:
>> > > I noticed in today's upgrade (03/04) the order
m
> > To: ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
> > Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:17:05 +
> > CC: bae...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [ubuntu-art] Metacity Button Order Changed
>
> >
> > On Friday 05 March 2010 01:43:43 am John Baer wrote:
> > > I noticed in today's up
Just curious, what is the thought behind the change?
As in, why is it deemed better to change the order?
> From: kw...@ubuntu.com
> To: ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:17:05 +
> CC: bae...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [ubuntu-art] Metacity Button Order
On Friday 05 March 2010 01:43:43 am John Baer wrote:
> I noticed in today's upgrade (03/04) the order of the metacity's
> "minimize" and "maximized" buttons changed.
>
> In the old metacity the order was; minimize, maximize, close
>
> In the new metacity the order is: maximize, minimize, close
>
I noticed in today's upgrade (03/04) the order of the metacity's
"minimize" and "maximized" buttons changed.
In the old metacity the order was; minimize, maximize, close
In the new metacity the order is: maximize, minimize, close
Is this the desired effect or is this a bug?
--
ubuntu-art mail
31 matches
Mail list logo
