unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jamu Kakar <jkakar@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jorge,

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Ortega
<jorge.ortega111@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I find Unity approach to multiple virtual desktops extremely half-hearted:
> it just provides the option to used them and an icon which you can't remove
> from the bar.
>
> Unity could use virtual desktop in a transparent way:
>
> 1-Don't show icon if only a desktop is being used.
> 2-Apps. should open in a new virtual desktop each. (by default)

I want to choose how I use workspaces.  I don't want the shell to make
arbitrary decisions for me.  My impression is that workspaces are used
primarily by power users who know what they want.  Putting a default
in place that gets in the way of that sounds like a bad idea.

> 3-When more than one app. is open then the icon to switch desktops appears
> in the bar (it has to be very prominent)

This is a bit like the pattern used to stick an icons in the launcher.
You first have to start an application and only then can you make it
sticky.  I find this behaviour in the launcher confusing.  When I
started using Unity I expected to be able to drag applications from
the application dash and stick them in the Launcher.

I suspect having to do something before you know that workspaces exist
would be similarly confusing.  Also, for those users that aren't
familiar with them, they'd probably be confused as to why two icons
appear in the launcher when they start an application instead of one
(the desktop switcher and the application icon).

Also, how will workspace focus behave?  If I have Firefox running on
workspace one and I then start Evolution, will it magically take me to
workspace two?  If so, I won't be able to Alt-Tab back to Firefox.  If
not, Evolution will appear not to have started.  In the first case,
this will force me to either (a) use the mouse to click on the Firefox
icon or (b) know about Alt-Shift-Tab (which I think is not well
known).  In the second case, I'll have to know that Evolution started
somewhere else and figure out where and how to get there.

> 4-Exceptions should be made, probably for configuration tools. For instance,
> when you open pulseaudio sound preferences this window should appear in the
> active dektop. The understanding is you are just checking on something or
> carrying out a very transitory task and close the app straight away. A case
> could be made for multiple isntances of the file manger as well: most of the
> time we are transferring files between windows.

This sounds tricky to get right.

> 5-The transitions between desktops (apps. in fact) should be very smooth and
> not sight-tiring.

Agreed.

> In short:
> current behaviour: apps open in the same space and the user has to put them
> in different deskops.

I usually move to the workspace I want before opening an application,
if I want it to be on a different workspace than the one I'm on.

> suggested behaviour: apps open in their own space and the user has to put
> put them manually in the same desktops if they want to do it.
>
> Which such a behaviour the concept of virtual desktops becomes transparent:
> people would use them without actually realizing, you don't decide to use
> the feature or not, the feature is at the core of how your computer
> works.The way to do this doesn't have to be the traditional zoom out/drag
> and drop/zoon in: drag an icon onto other icon to move apps to the same
> space/desktop and gain focus on this desktop immediately.
>
> In this context minimizing seems to loose any sense: why do you wan to
> minimize an app that is not sharing its space with anything else?

I minimize applications that are doing something useful, but that I
don't want to deal with.  For example, I often use Movie Player to
play a stream of the internet.  I minimize it so that it doesn't show
up when I hit Super-w to get a view of all the active windows (and I
like this behaviour).

Removing the "get out of my way" behaviour that minimizing provides
would result in useful functionality being lost.

> The above proposal has far reaching consecuences but would go a very long
> way towards simplifying how people use their computers.

I disagree.  The suggestions above would go a very long way to making
my computer harder to use and harder to reason about.

Thanks,
J.