unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jorge Ortega <jorge.ortega111@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
> Those who have been arguing for minimizing on yet another click on the
> launcher will likely not be satisfied with an option
>

I would definitely be satisfied by this [?] just like I'm satisfied by the
possibility of changing the launcher size or his hiding behaviour
On 21 June 2011 10:13, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 06/21/2011 10:40 AM, Adrian Maier wrote:
>
>> If the contributed code is ok from a technical point of view but is
>> rejected for design reasons .... hm, well, in this case it would
>> indicate an unhealthy attitude towards the user community .   There is
>> no harm in having an additional option that is activated only on
>> demand , and I expect that the devels realize it.
>>
>
> Maybe such a patch would be accepted in this specific case, but I would
> guess not. The last statement is wrong. A patch needs to be reviewed and
> tested to make sure it does what it should and makes nothing stop doing what
> it should. So here's harm already. Then it adds complexity. You have to care
> about it on refactoring, it's like extra weight you have to carry around.
>
> The option needs to be exposed to the user somehow. It needs to be
> documented. If hardly anyone knows about it, it would be useless.
>
> Those who have been arguing for minimizing on yet another click on the
> launcher will likely not be satisfied with an option. The real desire is
> default behavior, be it because the person doesn't want to have to change an
> option, be it for a true believe the behavior would be better for the
> majority of users.
>
>
>
> --
> Thorsten Wilms
>
> thorwil's design for free software:
> http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelp<https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
>