Well I suppose that code does still have be maintained and taken into
account regarding other features?
On 4 May 2012 04:35, Ryan Gauger wrote:
> But I do not see how it is a burden to developers. Why not just leave it
> as it was? I just don't understand the burden part. Someone please explain
I do understand the reasoning for dodge removal but shouldn't the usability
tests have suggested the problems in the first place?
Obviously, removing a feature that has been default for a full release is
going to have much more impact than a feature that is wanted but has never
been included or is
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Marco Biscaro wrote:
> 2012/5/4 Evan Huus
>
>>
>> When designing a large, widely-used project like Unity you have to be
>> brutally strict about what is allowed in terms of features and options, or
>> else the project begins to bloat under the weight of hundreds of
2012/5/4 Evan Huus
>
> When designing a large, widely-used project like Unity you have to be
> brutally strict about what is allowed in terms of features and options, or
> else the project begins to bloat under the weight of hundreds of these
> 'little' features and options. It starts being slow,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Ryan Gauger wrote:
> But I do not see how it is a burden to developers. Why not just leave it
> as it was? I just don't understand the burden part. Someone please explain
> it to me. Thanks!!!
>
>From a developer's perspective...
Every additional line of code, e
But I do not see how it is a burden to developers. Why not just leave it as it
was? I just don't understand the burden part. Someone please explain it to me.
Thanks!!!
In Christ,
Ryan
Sent from my iPod
On May 3, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Conscious User wrote:
> Em 03-05-2012 13:46, Ryan Gauger escre
Am 04.05.2012 00:55 schrieb "Conscious User" :
>
> You have been told more than once that part of the problem is
> the burden on developers, yet you never addressed that.
>
> If you insist on ignoring this argument, you give the impression
> that you don't care how burdened the developers are, whic
Em 03-05-2012 13:46, Ryan Gauger escreveu:
No, I think the vast majority of users upgrade every release, not just
Long-Term Support releases. I would rather have a simple option in
CCSM than have to get special packages from the web, then from there
unpack them... Again, I think an option would
If a large amount of user want something like dodge back, is it not the
case that using third party PPA's, hacks and patches could result in a much
more unstable system than if dodge was still there?
I think PPA's are a good idea for those who want a newer version of a
particular app but actually
On 05/03/2012 09:38 AM, Benjamin Tegge wrote:
That depends on what you mean by not respecting the needs of longtime
users. The vast majority is supposed to be upgrading from 10.04 to
12.04, they never had that feature. You probably mean advanced users
that have seen Unity evolve and that have
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Benjamin Tegge
wrote:
> Please consider this code path to be community supported as of now. There is
> an answered question on askubuntu.com that leads to a posting in the Ubuntu
> forums which even links to a PPA for easy installation. I currently don't
> have tha
That depends on what you mean by not respecting the needs of longtime
users. The vast majority is supposed to be upgrading from 10.04 to 12.04,
they never had that feature. You probably mean advanced users that have
seen Unity evolve and that have their own opinions about UI and UX design.
Those ar
Please consider this code path to be community supported as of now. There
is an answered question on askubuntu.com that leads to a posting in the
Ubuntu forums which even links to a PPA for easy installation. I currently
don't have that link at hand, because I'm at work. I think OMG! Ubuntu! or
Web
Em 03-05-2012 02:49, Ian Santopietro escreveu:
Because of the burden of maintaining the code that enables that. There
are a bunch of components that do that, and it's better to focus
developer time into projects that affect the vast majority of users.
Who is "the vast majority of users"? New user
I find setting to autohide is terrible with a touchpad and getting to show
is unpredictable.
So I am left with the launcher always showing.
Not so good when working on a small netbook screen, especially on 2D where
I can't even resize the launcher.
On 2 May 2012 22:33, Ian Santopietro wrote:
> "
But the much simpler option of hide on maximize has also been rejected
without any realistic reason.
Mark said it would still cause confusion but not when it is an option that
has to be chosen by a user.
On 3 May 2012 06:49, Ian Santopietro wrote:
> Because of the burden of maintaining the code
Because of the burden of maintaining the code that enables that. There
are a bunch of components that do that, and it's better to focus
developer time into projects that affect the vast majority of users.
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Ryan Gauger wrote:
> I have tried auto-hide, didn't work for
I have tried auto-hide, didn't work for me. IMHO, we should implement this as
an OPTION in CCSM. Why remove it entirely instead of having it as an option?
In Christ,
Ryan
Sent from my iPod
On May 2, 2012, at 4:33 PM, Ian Santopietro wrote:
> "The World" did not love the idea of re-implementin
On 02/05/12 18:18, Ryan Gauger wrote:
Why is the final conclusion no? Why do people on this team hate the idea of adding the
feature back in while the world (public) loves the idea of re-implementing this feature?
I keep bringing this up because it continues to be dropped, while the public trie
"The World" did not love the idea of re-implementing this feature, and
most people on this team were against dropping it. The reasoning is
that End-user tested showed it was confusing and didn't inspire
confidence.
You can't make claims like "Most Ubuntu users want this back..."
without showing ev
There were good designs in Oneiric. There would be in Precise if this option
was re-implemented. Again, most Ubuntu users want this back. There is really no
reason why we couldn't at least make dodge an option, but maybe not by default
in CCSM. Just saying.
In Christ,
Ryan
Sent from my iPod
O
This issue has been discussed in great length before, and in short,
the burden on Unity Developers is not superficial. The option is also
confusing, and there are no good designs for enabling this option
presented. It's not coming back.
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Michele Giacomoli
wrote:
> +
Why is the final conclusion no? Why do people on this team hate the idea of
adding the feature back in while the world (public) loves the idea of
re-implementing this feature? I keep bringing this up because it continues to
be dropped, while the public tries to say "don't ignore it! We want this
It seemed to me that this has already been discussed a lot, with the
finally conclusion being no. but maybe just certain elements of
autododge, and with improvements.
And at this time, no one has stepped forward with interest in making
this direction happen.
Take care,
Dan
On Wed, May 2, 201
+1
2012/5/2 Ryan Gauger
> Hello,
>
> I have forgotten if I have brought this up before, so please forgive me if
> I have. I think we should bring the Intellihide/dodge launcher feature
> back. It only uses a few megabytes doesn't it? If so, it wouldn't hurt to
> add it back in, would it? A lot o
Hello,
I have forgotten if I have brought this up before, so please forgive me if I
have. I think we should bring the Intellihide/dodge launcher feature back. It
only uses a few megabytes doesn't it? If so, it wouldn't hurt to add it back
in, would it? A lot of Ubuntu users want it back. Just m
26 matches
Mail list logo
