maybe that's why the gnome-shell people removed minimized ? good intentions, but bad implementation... is probably why i dont use g-shell ;/
but if there was a better implementation i might consider it. From: stapos...@gmail.com Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:53:13 +0200 To: t...@freenet.de CC: unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Unity-design] On left-clicking the launcher with multiple instances running 2012/2/16 Thorsten Wilms <t...@freenet.de> On 02/15/2012 10:10 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: MPT can probably point to it, but there's more research that people don't understand the difference between minimising and closing, and "just want it back" when they click on the app icon. So that's what we should give them :) If that problem is really widespread and persists with a significant number of users, wouldn't that suggest that Close and Minimize should make way for a single "Hide"? Provided that application start/stop is managed somewhat independently and state is restored, removing the difference in outcome close and minimize have now. Actually, if that can be accomplished in a non-leaky way, it would remove hassle for everyone (except control freaks and zombies). There is of course a class of service-based applications that require explicit start/stop, like IRC presence and checking email periodically. Now that's an interesting idea! However, there is an important difference between 'close' and 'minimize', in that 'close' changes the state of a window pretty drastically by unloading the current document being edited. -- 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
-- 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
