unity-design team mailing list archive

[Ryan Gauger <rtgkid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Why is the final conclusion no? Why do people on this team hate the idea of adding the feature back in while the world (public) loves the idea of re-implementing this feature? I keep bringing this up because it continues to be dropped, while the public tries to say "don't ignore it! We want this feature back!"? Part of Ubuntu is about being open. This is not showing very well when just about everybody wants this feature, but the design team does not care at all about what the public thinks.

Sent from my iPod

On May 2, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Daniel Hollocher <danielhollocher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It seemed to me that this has already been discussed a lot, with the
> finally conclusion being no..... but maybe just certain elements of
> autododge, and with improvements.
> 
> And at this time, no one has stepped forward with interest in making
> this direction happen.
> 
> Take care,
> Dan
> 
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Michele Giacomoli
> <michele.giacomoli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> 2012/5/2 Ryan Gauger <rtgkid@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I have forgotten if I have brought this up before, so please forgive me if
>>> I have. I think we should bring the Intellihide/dodge launcher feature back.
>>> It only uses a few megabytes doesn't it? If so, it wouldn't hurt to add it
>>> back in, would it? A lot of Ubuntu users want it back. Just my two cents.
>>> Thanks!!!
>>> 
>>> In Christ,
>>> Ryan
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPod
>>> --
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
>>> Post to     : unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
>> Post to     : unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear,
> simple--and wrong."