Re: [Ayatana] Is it time we killed "minimize to tray" ?

[Jonathan Blackhall <johnny.one.eye@xxxxxxxxx>]

It's funny because I was going to post to this mailing list last week
about the same time and there was some sort of error, and I didn't get
my list access until just today.  Anyway, it's weird that we picked up
on the same "problem" but postulated different reasons why.  Here's my
take:

This is a copy of a message I sent to ubuntu-devel-discuss last month.
After Matthew Paul Thomas' post on the Canonical Design blog
(http://design.canonical.com/2010/04/notification-area/), other users
expressed similar sentiments to my mailing list message.  I was just
curious if Ayatana members had any additional thoughts.  I understand
that many of you are also subscribers to ubuntu-devel-discuss, so I
apologize if you're getting this message twice.  I've also added some
more thoughts after the break.

-

It's very confusing for me when I click the big 'X' in my window
controls, only to find that the application I was attempting to close
has since been minimized to my system tray (or notification area or
its respective indicator applet or wherever it goes instead of
quitting).  Examples of programs with this behavior include Rhythmbox
and Empathy in the default  nstall.  To me, the 'X' signifies closing
and quitting the application.  If I wanted to minimize it and keep it
open, I would think to click the 'Minimize' button before clicking the
'X'.  In fact, I'd argue that the only reason anyone thinks this is
appropriate is because it's what's been done in the past.  The reason
I find this so frustrating is because in order for me to eXit an
application, I have to go searching through menus (File->Quit) or know
some fancy keyboard shortcuts (things that casual users never even
think about).

I can only assume that developers' theories behind this (which is
definitely not a problem unique to Ubuntu) stem from them telling
themselves that no one would actually want to Quit their application.
"What they *really* mean to do is close the window, but keep the
application running silently.  So I'll just save them the trouble of
accidentally quitting by changing the function of that 'X' button."  I
just dislike the fact that it sends mixed signals.  After all, if I
click 'X' in Firefox or in gEdit or in a whole host of other
applications, I'm quitting and completely closing it.  Why must this
be different in Rhythmbox?  And also, when I install a new
application, what is the 'X' going to do when I click it in this
application?

I'm not exactly sure what I'd propose to fix this problem.  I really
just think that the current way is broken.  Maybe the function could
be switched to the Minimize button, but that would likewise exhibit
ambiguity, although I'd argue less so than the current incarnation.
Maybe there should be a new window button, but that doesn't seem like
a very elegant solution either.  I thought about filing this as a bug,
but then I thought it might be better to generate discussion amongst
developers.  What are your thoughts?  Do you consider the current
situation a problem? If so, what do you propose to fix it?

Cheers,
Jonathan

-

After some discussion on ubuntu-devel-discuss, I do understand that
the 'X' means "close the current window" and it's up to the
application to decide whether it "makes sense" to keep running in the
notification area (or its indicator applet).  It's definitely is nice
to let something such as Rhythmbox or Empathy run without needing the
window open.  I outlined 2 of my biggest concerns later:

The current behavior can cause a number of problems.  As other users
pointed out (and I have also experienced), sometimes you want to quit
an application, such as Empathy or Gwibber, only later to find
yourself still logged in, online, and maybe receiving messages.
Another issue is with Rhythmbox. This is especially true for newer
users. Let's say I just click the 'X' to quit, just like I do with
Firefox or Calculator.  I don't notice that the icon is still present
in the Notification Area.  It's not doing any particular harm there
right now.  However, then I shut down my computer and come back the
next day.  I open Rhythmbox, and it starts minimized to the
Notification Area.  I'm sitting there waiting patiently for it to
open, but it never does.  Now you could argue that this is a bug in
Rhythmbox (and it has been reported), but my point is that it
highlights an underlying problem of an application not quitting when
the user wants it to.

I guess I'd summarize my concern as:  1. It should be possible to
completely quit an application by clicking a single button on the
window controls.  2. When you're not completely quitting an
application, that fact should be unambiguous to the user.  3. If an
application is going to start solely in the Notification Area (or
Indicator Applet) without opening a window, the user should know and
expect that's going to happen and know where/how to open the
application's window should they need to.

After reading Mark's post last week
(http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/333) I began to wonder
whether this was a great opportunity for his Windicators.  For
example, something like the "eye" button seems like it would be an
interesting way to "hide" a window, but still have the application
accessible via its indicator applet.

Cheers,
Jonathan