unity-design team mailing list archive

[Luke Benstead <kazade@xxxxxxxxx>]

> In general, no. If the ideas they express are better, but the metrics we can
> bring to bear (including the view of the people to whom the design
> leadership has been given) then those patches can be included without
> options, the default behaviour will be improved for all. If they just create
> options for options sake, no. That creates complexity and cruft in code. Go
> and look at the consequences of that, it's all around you. Poor testing,
> poor quality, poor consistency.

I think the reason that notify-osd's positioning is a particular
sticking point with many people is that it is something where no
default location will suit the majority of people. Users with visual
problems, non-default layouts, applications that have elements right
where the notification pops up all would like, perhaps need, some way
to move them out of the way. And the real reason that it causes such
an issue with people is it's a bloody good idea and they want to be
able to use it.

I understand fully what you are saying about both sensible defaults,
and how too much configuration is a bad thing, (I'm a programmer, I
know how much more work it adds to make something configurable) but
sometimes you need to allow some kind of override switch.

Look at it this way, every decision you make when designing software,
you weigh up the pros and cons of all the options before you make it.
When neither option has any concrete benefit over the other, that's
when it's down to personal preference and that (I would argue) is when
you make it configurable and then, only then when it's worth the extra
work. I would say that notify-osd's positioning is one of those
occasions.

Luke.