On 02/09/2012 07:48 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote:
Ok. I personally feel that the desktop is a horrible place to keep
icons at all. If that's still tempting, then I think other solutions
should be promoted. For instance, organizing your stuff in folders
that you access by using bookmarks.
What's the point of having a desktop if you don't keep *something* on it
. I personally have some folders and files .
I don't really agree with that. You can't use the launcher without
either point the mouse at it, in which case it's shown
Well my point is that it's easier to start an app from launcher if you
have it visible and you don't have to take the 0.5 sec to open the
launcher and then see and click the icon .
As much as possible? It's possible to have it open all the time. But
isn't it likely that you'll either want to display it all the time or
keep it hidden?
The idea is that in a good portion of the cases it's most important to
have more workspace , and with secondary importance to have the above
explained luxury of seeing the launcher . What dodge windows does is it
gives more workspace when needed , and when it's not needed - gives the
launcher . That's the perfection of it for me .
Yes, stable code is good. The problem is that when you're adding any
code, the code isn't stable. Adding some code in one place might make
other code unstable. The more code you have, the bigger the chances of
that happening is. Then the question becomes what those two and three
features should be. If that's the limit, then you're saying that other
features can't be added.
My point actually is that there should be advanced options - those very
useful things that can confuse new users , but are ... well very useful :D
"Here's the four points to keeping such resources :
-they might appear more usable further down the road
Then it might appear to me that it would be wise to add them when they
become more usable. Not to keep them around _in case_ that should ever
happen. Otherwise, you'd have to consider that code every time you
added or changed something until that theoretical moment in time when
it should suddenly prove to become much more usable. That's a waste of
time.
I had a more specific idea hot they can be useful , but let's say the
point doesn't stand .
-they will be available for advanced customisation and/or
experimentation
Sure, that'll be nice. For instance, I sometimes flip my right screen
to vertical when I read books. Ah, how nice it would be if Unity would
discover that I'm about to read a book and flip that screens
orientation for me. Perhaps we could suppliment a calendar so that
only if I open a book on a Friday afternoon should this happen? And
optionally have it scan international bookstores to recognize the book
I'm about to read. If it's a comic book, then I might not want to flip
the screen. That would be an advanced customization option, wouldn't
it? Perhaps that might become very usable sometime further down the
road. :)
Yes , do that , compare the dodge windows with the verticalisation on
Friday thing . I defined my idea of advanced options above .
-they generally don't need maintenance
Those kinds of claims generally needs evidence to back them up. That
sounds very strange to me. How can that be possible?
Yeah it's not true , I've done development , but not for these kinds of
big projects , and didn't take into account the fact that when you
change one bit of the underlying layer you have to debug everything ,not
just the changing features.
-they don't interfere with "keeping the code clean" . The code base
isn't an interface , and having a rich code base , if it's stable
,can only be a plus for a developing component "
You are talking about a text document, right? The source code. More
features means more text. The longer that text becomes, the more
difficult it is to keep the story in your mind. When that becomes
difficult, chances of accidentally introducing bugs increase. Have you
ever listened to a politician speak? They're masters at making you
forget the questions you intended to ask. They do so by adding lots of
nonsense in between. Code is the same way. Nonsense means clutter,
which means less clean code. I'm not calling dodge nonsense, but
unnecessary features in general.
True , true , it's just that I think that some features (some , most
useful , not all) should be kept for the above mentioned advanced
customisation reasons .
Petko Ditchev
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
