> well, that's if you consider that less notifications is an issue, I
would rather consider it as a feature (but that's my personal opinion)
we get enough "notification spam" without encouraging every software
writter to add some ;-)

I agree that spamming is a bad thing. I just think Ubuntu's policing of
it is a bad design decision.

Fewer notifications is a lose term. I can easily abuse the current
functionality and keep triggering notifications. I just can't have them
disappear as quickly as I might like, ie it doesn't respect the timeout.

So the system can currently be abused as it is.

Ubuntu is free to choose what software makes it into the build. If
something is abusing the notification guidelines, it doesn't make it
into the build. Simple. Beyond that let the users police what software
they use. If something is spamming them constantly with notifications,
they'll remove it, or write a bug report or not install it in the first
place!

But as stated in many cases above there are clear cases where a shorter or 
longer timeout would give improved usability. 
Option 1 - A middle ground, short/medium/long would give some flexibility while 
maintaining a consistent experience.
Option 2 - Let developers use what timeout they want but supply guidelines. 
Ubuntu picks the apps for the build for a consistent user experience that 
follow the guidelines. Beyond that if a user installs an inconsistent app, that 
is up to them. I may install Amarok yet it has a completely different UI to 
everything else in Ubuntu. And I can remove it if I don't like it.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508

Title:
  notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/390508/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to