unity-design team mailing list archive
-
unity-design team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #02144
Re: No "application bucket" needed
Alright, sounds like we should definitely test removing minimized
windows from alt-tab when they are minimized to the Launcher in Unity.
1. Minimized windows won't take up space in the Launcher (they will
be contained "within" their application icon).
2. They won't clutter alt-tab, as alt-tab will only switch between
visible windows.
3. They are easy to recall from their application icon, which is
reliably positioned by the user.
Maybe this will make a convincing replacement to minimize-to-tray.
Then we can eliminate the lingering correspondence between windows and
indicators, and unify window minimization as exactly the thing that
happens when you click the minimize button on a window.
David
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Luke Benstead <kazade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 17 May 2010 11:58, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 17/05/10 11:40, David Siegel wrote:
>>> More specifically, I'm interested in why people use minimize-to-tray
>>> instead of regular minimize. My suspicion is that it's easier to
>>> recall minimized windows by clicking on indicators than by clicking on
>>> the window list.
>>>
>>
>> My assumption has been that people want to get the window OUT of the
>> Alt-TAB list, and off the task bar.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> Alt-TAB list definitely, but I think people only want it off the task
> bar because of lack of space. DockbarX has a ppa[1] give it a try,
> replace your window-switcher applet and then don't use the
> minimize-to-tray functionality of the indicator applets/notification
> area. It's much more usable IMO.
>
> If DockbarX also removed minimized windows from the Alt+TAB list - it
> would be perfect :D
>
> Luke.
>
> [1] https://launchpad.net/~dockbar-main/+archive/ppa
>
Follow ups
References
-
Windicators
From: Roth Robert, 2010-05-03
-
Re: Windicators
From: Akshat Jain, 2010-05-16
-
Re: Windicators
From: Sense Hofstede, 2010-05-16
-
No "application bucket" needed
From: Mark Shuttleworth, 2010-05-16
-
Re: No "application bucket" needed
From: David Siegel, 2010-05-17
-
Re: No "application bucket" needed
From: Luke Benstead, 2010-05-17
-
Re: No "application bucket" needed
From: David Siegel, 2010-05-17
-
Re: No "application bucket" needed
From: David Siegel, 2010-05-17
-
Re: No "application bucket" needed
From: Mark Shuttleworth, 2010-05-17
-
Re: No "application bucket" needed
From: Luke Benstead, 2010-05-17