@SRoesgen: I think the left border will be the most unlikely place for a false positive, even when flipping the pages of a book. If it were up to me, I would require the finger to almost hit the left-most line of pixels. That would work well, I think.
On 12/22/2011 02:00 PM, SRoesgen wrote: > @Maarten Kossen > Swiping into any direction would be a nice and handy metaphor for turning > the pages of a book. But instead of this the swiping will reveal the launcher > which people might not even know exists because it is auto-hidden on a touch > screen? > Well, nicely done. For me this sound not very logical or intuitive. > Especially since many people use tablets as some form of high powered > e-reader, e-book, webbrowser and not much more (besides reading e-mails). > > @all > The fact that so many people have problems with only one feature and debate > it for over one year now, would make me think about the decisions. I think > that all of us really like Ubuntu, the idea behind Ubuntu and even Unity. If > we didn't care for Unity, we would not start debating a single feature but > instead we would criticize the whole Unity Shell (which is exactly what we > are not doing at the moment, which is very good.) > The point is, one can see the arguments against a moveable launcher. But many > of them are not really valid anymore. And I am sorry, I cannot see any really > conclusive and convincing argument against a movable launcher in the far > future. > > > @John Lea (and I am afraid I have to get a little bit academic now) > You didn't get my car metaphor right. I was not talking about blocking future > developments and innovation. Innovation is a good thing. I was talking about > something that in psychological theories is called the "horizon of > expectation". > If you see a product you expect things. If these expectations are not met > they break that horizon of expectations and usually are met with criticism > and debate. My analogy was about the doors in a car. Not the number of doors, > but the doors itself. If you have a car with two, four or eight doors. You > will expect all of them to work as doors and not as windows. You create your > own horizon of expectation derived by your life experiences, they define your > habits and pattern of thinking. > The criticism that emerges when breaking this horizon will inevitably create > debate, which in itself is not bad. Breaking the horizon of expectation very > often resulted in new innovations. But breaking the horizon several times, on > multiple points will automatically result in defamiliarization (or > alienation) of those who see their horizon of expectations broken too often > by the same event/thing. > Basically the premise under which you developed Unity was good, and well > thought. The design is creating familiarities on different points by creating > elements you can relate to because they are known, working features in smart > phones, desktops of operating systems, netbook interfaces etc... > The problem arises when those points which apparently create familiarities > are broken when the recipient (user) experiences moments when those familiar > paradigms, which create stability, are not working as expected. > The people here want exactly one feature added. And indeed you can postulate > that every single concession made here will result in debates on other places > about different topics and different bugs. And thus you might complain that > too many user features will result in an unmaintainable Unit. The difference > is that there are very very few bugs on launchpad which are debated to > extensively, so vigorously and so passionately. This should make you think > about it. > I once told here before. I think the idea of Mark Shuttleworth of a dictator, > as somebody whose power lies "in dictandi ingenio", in the power to command > if requested and if necessary, is basically a good thing. Too much debate > about everything will destroy a product and make it a formless mass which is > unmaintainable code. But a Roman dictator had only a short period of this > time of absolute power to command and make decisions. He was never held > responsible for those thing he commanded during that period of reign. But > after a few month this reign was over and there was again a debate culture in > the Roman Senate and the Assemblies. > What I want to say: if so many people, at least a significant and "audible" > number of people, want something, then wouldn't it be right to raise against > the topic. Bring it before the assemblies and the senate (so discuss in in > some internet fora/forums, on mailing lists of the Dx or design or desktop > teams). Make the members of those lists read this whole discussion that is > raging for over one year now. And then decide again what is right and what is > wrong. > -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/668415 Title: Movement of Unity launcher To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/668415/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
