unity-design team mailing list archive

[Mark Shuttleworth <mark@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Rorie wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 18:39 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>   
>> To the extent that the things which need responding to really are
>> messages, this is appropriate. 
>>     
>
> What do you feel would be an example of something that wasn't
> appropriate?  
>
> My thinking of questionable examples:
> App crashes.  Dialog to send bug report (Seems too heavyweight )
> System restart required (Too important?)
> Pidgin is exiting, etc (Vanity message, ok for normal, bad for
> interactive)
>   
None of those fit in the MI, imo.

> My thinking of good examples:
> Your download is complete: Pick it up [Here]
> Your print Job failed.  Go [Here] to resend to printer.
> Updates are available.  Go [Here] to install.
>   
Yuck! None of those are messages. They're all candidates for one or
other systemic indicator, though. Just not the MI.


> The blackberry handles this nicely.  Programs register in the O/S and
> the BB decides what you see and don't.  When you don't want to be
> disturbed, it doesn't happen.  Through an interactive MI, a global DND
> would be possible for compliant applications.   And with a more robust
> messaging interface supporting interactivity, you have the carrot to get
> them to comply.
>   
Why would a DND be sensible to put in the MI?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature