unity-design team mailing list archive
-
unity-design team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #02210
Re: No "application bucket" needed
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 01:49 +0200, Frederik Nnaji wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 01:10, Luke Morton
> <luke.morton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
>
> yes, finally someone!
>
>
> So I think the thing that causes usability problems is
> actually
> inconsistent exiting behaviour.
>
> Behaviour? This means client-side, not WM, correct?
Yes. The WM emits a signal that the client (application) responds to.
The client (application) can then choose what to do with that signal.
> 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.)
>
> their close button is not red IIRC.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> wow, sometimes it will, sometimes it won't, it makes up for its
> totally inconsistent behaviour with asking the user additional
> questions on exit..
> We all know that's a trace of suboptimal design consistency.
>
References
-
Windicators
From: Roth Robert, 2010-05-03
-
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
-
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: Frederik Nnaji, 2010-05-17
-
Re: No "application bucket" needed
From: Jeremy Nickurak, 2010-05-17
-
Re: No "application bucket" needed
From: Luke Morton, 2010-05-17
-
Re: No "application bucket" needed
From: Frederik Nnaji, 2010-05-17