> 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
