unity-design team mailing list archive

[Chow Loong Jin <hyperair@xxxxxxxxx>]

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