On Friday 11,September,2009 04:52 PM, David Barth wrote: > It is was not on the table for Karmic, that is, Mozilla had reservations > last year about the non-interactivity of n-osd notifications and I think > they prefer to see how the rest of the community reacts to our change > before reconsidering a switch. If they're having reservations about the non-interactivity of notify-osd, how about making the actions optional? For example, don't show actions for notify-osd users (where actions aren't supported), but show actions for notification-daemon users, much like most of the other applications are doing. > I think what we've shown for now 2 releases, is that the > non-interactivity of that kind of notification is well received, and > actually becomes a desirable feature for users. I do miss the notification interactivity sometimes, but I do think that the notification bubbles making themselves translucent when hovered upon is a godsend. The recent change which caused notification bubbles to not disappear if the cursor was already there before the notification appeared is very annoying, but that's a different story. > The standardization work that we did with other projects (on the xdg > list) should also help, along with the fact that now third-parties can > really rely on a server capability to adapt their behavior. > > Last Mozilla not only uses Growl on the Mac but they also research > similar notification mechanisms (http://www.toolness.com/wp/?p=463) so I > hope they will reconsider libnotify support in the future. AFAICS, libnotify appears to be the de-facto notification system on most if not all desktop environments, or at least the major GTK-based ones anyway, so if they're using Growl on Mac, I really don't see any reason for them to reinvent a notification system rather than just using libnotify for their notifications. -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature