unity-design team mailing list archive

[James Jenner <james.g.jenner@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2 November 2011 18:04, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
<joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> I'm usually called Jo-Erlend, but I don't really care that much what you
> call me, as long as you don't call me at home. :)
>
>
lol, no worries, I'll make sure I don't do that :-)


>
> I were attending remotely, and there was quite a bit of chatter, so I
> couldn't catch everything. My impression, though, was that they were
> talking about the desktop, and that includes more than just Unity. However,
> once you start changing software, the workload increases. Because of this,
> it is very much in the interest of the Ubuntu community to stay as close to
> Gnome as possible. That means what configuration options should be
> available in 12.04, would probably also depend, at least in part, on what's
> accepted into Gnome. Nautilus supports plugins and extensions, though, so
> that might be a better solution than to make Nautilus itself more
> configurable.
>
>
Ahh, that makes sense. Didn't realise that Nautilus supports
plugins/extensions, good to know. I think I have to spend some time getting
into some dev work on ubuntu related stuff this summer (your winter I
believe), learn the ins and outs and start contributing.


> But you know, these sessions last one hour, so there's very little room to
> figure out the smallest details. That's not the goal. The goal is to figure
> out what the goals are. What configuration options becomes available
> remains to be seen. Some configuration options are necessary and others
> would be nice. I hope not to see a configuration bonanza though.
> Configuration options are often fairly easy to add, but -- obviously --
> difficult to remove without making lots of people very unhappy. And for
> something to be configurable, you don't just need a checkbox. You need
> extra features, which necessarily consumes some resources.  They also make
> the desktop more difficult to support. So, all in all, I would prefer to
> see configuration options appear as they're proven to be necessary, and not
> in the hope that they won't be useless. In other words, to err on the side
> of simplicity.
>
>
Agree with all your points. Personally I tend towards the minimalist
approach as well. My main concern is for infrequent users and for users who
require accessibility considerations. In my experience, accessibility can
be a pain to factor in after the fact. But sounds like plug ins or
extensions could be the way to go for Nautilus.

Thanks for answering my questions Jo-Erlend.

Cheers,

James