← Back to team overview

unity-design team mailing list archive

Re: No more dodge windows in Unity?


On 08/02/12 12:29, Petko wrote:
On 02/08/2012 01:37 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:

It also turns out that users who can work with dodging launchers can also work perfectly well with launchers which always hide when not used.

That is true but is no reason to remove the "dodge" option. I can work with whatever launcher but I love the dodge option (especially the "smart" in MyUnity) and if a user sets it up himself it wouldn't be at all confusing . I bet that can be proven with tests also .

But is it worth it? Saying no to options is an important discipline if you want to contribute here. Saying yes always is an easy route to failure. For a start, if we said that the total number of options had to stay the same or decrease over time, which two options would you remove in order to gain *this* one?

Now here's where things get bad - removing the most efficient option from the list because some people may not understand it .

There are those who say the CLI is the most efficient option, but we'd like people to be able to use Ubuntu without it, right? ;-)

My arguments why this is bad:
1. "Dodge" is not the most confusing of words . And if it is you can always say "smart" .

Dodge at least sets the user up to expect some sort of movement of the launcher based on the movement of something else. 'Smart' could mean *anything*. Is it smart because it puts things there you are going to want? Does it install apps you might like and put them there for your attention? Does it take your calls or write your email? Calling something 'smart' is apocalyptically unhelpful ;-)

2. Users know that when they change settings they'll have to understand things , and that one is not at all complex (when you have the name). Otherwise we shouldn't introduce new functionality at all.

*Some* users know this. Most don't care. Until you understand that, we won't be one the same page at all, and I'll sound like an alien headshrinking cannibal to you. Just saying.

That codepath will disappear, we'd prefer to keep the code lean (clean ? ) . In this case we've experimented, learned, and concluded a better approach is available, there's no argument for maintaining code we don't expose to users further.

I hope you're not talking about removing CCSM from the repositories?

No, just making it defunct. It could stay in the repositories if you wanted it there. In universe. Maybe. Remember, /headshrinking alien cannibal/.


Follow ups