Il 08/07/2010 10:54, Sebastien Bacher ha scritto: > The list where the design is discussed, see comment #95
Fine. >> No, and I'm not the only one. You seem quite sure that the ubuntu team > is always right and the (l)users are always wrong and, being stupid, > can't comprehend the great design behind notify-osd. > > Nobody said that, the Ubuntu team just decided on a design for Ubuntu > without any claim of being right or not, nobody said either that users > are wrong or stupid. No, not directly. Ok, so, now, we can finally say that probably the Ubuntu team is wrong and there are no problem with our comprehension capabilities. Good. > You could respect the choice of Ubuntu to take > decisions on what they are doing, Sure, but since the Ubuntu team ask for users/comunity support we feel free to ask and discuss about this behaviour. > nobody is forcing you to use Ubuntu if > you think the decision don't fit your needs either Once again, no doubt, but this is not the right answer to the question "why fixed timeouts should be better than variable timeouts?". >> never read a word explaining what "consistent way" means and what it > is useful for. Where is the "value"? In what? > > Consistent means that things are not changing randomly, > notifications are always displayed in the same way, for the same time Thanks, that was not difficult to understand. The point is that it makes no sense, so the use of this word, IMHO, is wrong. > rather than have a bubble displayed for 1 second, then the next one 15 seconds, then the next one 45 seconds just because the software Just because some software need short bubbles while some others longer timeouts? We need this, it's really useful, while having the same timeout does not significantly improve the user experience. To do an example, it's like saying that in a car we'd better have fixed front wheels because they look "consistent"/"uniform" to the rear ones, while we need them to rotate and steer. It doesn't look very brilliant and doesn't seem to have much "value". But still, there are various options available to maintain a sort of order, for example three different timeouts like bealer said, configuration options within the server and/or the clients and so on. Ignoring, always and totally, these possibilities is unbelievable. >> Where is the value when lots of people complain about it? > > Lot of people will complain anyway, Sure, but there are a lot of differences between a few and a lot, between reasonable objections and stupid requests. The tone used here shows that the Ubuntu team cannot see these differences. Moreover I don't think that common users pay too much attention about duration, while some power users do it. But we have the chance to make both happy, so why not? > Not sure what DNS have to do with that discussion but DNS have nothing > to do with visual design I was referring to the Desktop Notifications Specification. > Right, so change Ubuntu by the notify-osd writers, why don't you accept > that whoever is writing code can take decisions on what the said code > behaviour should be? If you don't like it don't use it, nobody forces > you to use notify-osd or Ubuntu Indeed I'm migrating back to debian, I just want to see how blind the Ubuntu developers are. -- notify-send ignores the expire timeout parameter https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
