unity-design team mailing list archive

[Luke Morton <luke.morton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the process of writing this, I realised the problem I have with
applications closing to the tray is that it makes the consequences of
closing windows inconsistent.

* Closing the only window for a non-tray application causes the
application to quit.
* Closing the only window for a tray application does not cause the
application to quit.
* Most applications are not tray applications so their non-quitting
behaviour is inconsistent with the majority.

Consider: if you've just opened an application that you've never used
before, what would you expect to happen if you closed its window?

So I think the thing that causes usability problems is actually
inconsistent exiting behaviour. If applications never exited when their
last window was closed, this wouldn't be a problem. (Incidentally, I
think this is the approach Mac OS X takes.)

Of course, that doesn't solve the messy task-list, but a dock would.

My original email:

On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 15:56 -0600, Jeremy Nickurak wrote: 
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 15:27, Frederik Nnaji
> <frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>         Isn't the ordinary user's mental concept of closing the window
>         via a red X rather closely related with quitting? 

For me this is definitely the case. I close windows by clicking the x in
the title bar, and if that's the only window open for that application,
the application exists as well.

Empathy breaks that model. And there have been a few times that I've
closed the Empathy contacts window thinking I will go offline only to be
caught out by its unexpected behaviour.

> Hitting "close" on one web browser window doesn't terminate the
> web-browser process, and the other windows associated with it.

It does if its the only window.

> In the case of Empathy, I've (gradually, and begrudgingly) come around
> to the idea that the messaging menu *is* the application, and the
> "Contact List" window is just a dialog box that lets me interact with
> it. I'm starting to think the same about rhythmbox, but its UI is
> complicated enough that it's tricky. Evolution is another several
> steps of complexity above that.

I get the concept--a line in the sand that separates services from
applications. I just don't think of Empathy as a service. In my mind
services are things I set-up and leave. I interact with Empathy (and
Rhythmbox, Evolution, etc) frequently, so they not services. But what
makes a service and what doesn't isn't well defined (not as far as I'm
aware) which will lead different people to make different assumptions
about which is which.