unity-design team mailing list archive
-
unity-design team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #05322
Re: New style of Minimize button for Natty
Mark, I'm not sure how Gnome Shell enters into this, I certainly have no
desire to use Gnome Shell. "Gnome Shell is worse" is not a great defense
of Unity, nor a sufficient distraction from the lack of configurability
in a premature serving of ~Unity~ as a Gnome 2.x replacement.
Unity's anti-pattern directly inspired this new minimize button, and as
I said, naturally reminds me of the anti-pattern. So separating Unity
from a detail of Unity is illogical and would amount to a matter of
convenience for those with a vested interest. The issue is Unity breaks
things people are used to for no / whatever reason, but more
importantly, does not give you a way to undo that and preserve ~your own
decisions~.
Middle of the screen? My Radiance minimize button continues the
horizontal / minus (substraction) concept and I can minimize to the top
panel just fine (screenshot <http://i.imgur.com/0Cen8.png>).
Furthermore, the global menu I use gives me a list of windows in all
workspaces, and the MintMenu keeps me from needing any dock. It may be
lacking in eye candy, but it ~functions~ the way I want it to, is
intuitive to ~me~, and it is all doable using the existing desktop
manager that is already ~working~ (except in Natty Classic). Those three
PPA applets will be useless to me in Natty, in both the Unity and
Classic sessions. This amounts to someone coming along and saying "stop
that, use ~our~ preferences, because we wear turtlenecks, and you are
wrong." Presumptuous?
If Canonical made cars, sold them with doors for seven years, then told
people "now you have to climb in through the window because we say so"
or brought them to market before the brakes were installed, it would be
recognized even by Canonical as a bad ~business~ model.
Moreover, until someone forks it, the classic Gnome experience is going
away presumably for all distros eventually. So Canonical lost an
opportunity to be a hero by picking up the ball Gnome dropped and
preserving it for the entire Linux ecosystem; all the while Canonical
could have still conducted its own secondary track for an optional
"alternative" UI ~and~ not have to had wasted resources on Unity 2D. On
a related note, if Canonical lacks the genuine ability to maintain
separate tracks for different form factors, perhaps Canonical is in the
wrong business. If you have to differentiate yourself via new UI
paradigms, you're doing it wrong. The desktop was a solved problem.
I may very well appreciate Unity on my tablet, but I don't do anything
of consequence on a tablet. If Canonical wants a diverse user
demographic, the name of the game is options, even if options are hard,
and even if the options are not Canonical's personal tastes. Canonical
can either accept the challenge or not accept it.
On 04/04/2011 04:34 PM, Mark Curtis wrote:
Right, because the default style of _ means you can never move the
Window List to anywhere but the bottom, or well Ambiance has - so I
guess that means windows mimize to the middle of the screen?
GNOME Shell doesn't have a minimize at all, I guess by your logic
isn't not configurable at all, or would that be infinity configurable?
At any rate CAN you even move the open applications list in GNOME
Shell (from, incidentally the left, where Unity's are)? Though that,
like the majority of your replay has nothing to do with the minimize
icon and more about Unity in general.