Starting discussion on a new version of the notification spec
William Jon McCann
william.jon.mccann at gmail.com
Mon Jun 15 11:25:25 PDT 2009
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Brian J. Tarricone<bjt23 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> On 06/15/2009 08:10 AM, William Jon McCann wrote:
>> Do you have a specific response to the problems that they describe at
>> the following?
>> I'd be very interested to see it. I think that rationale is fairly
>> compelling actually.
> There's only one valid criticism of notifications in this section, and
> it is valid regardless of whether or not you allow actions: the fact
> that notifications block user interaction with stuff under the
> notification. Canonical has chosen to solve that problem in notify-osd
> in a way that's incompatible with allowing actions. Again, this has
> nothing to do with whether or not actions are conceptually bad; it's
> just a design tradeoff they've made.
So, you don't actually have a response to the problem then. I don't
think anyone is saying that actions are bad - what does that even mean
anyway? However, the presence of actions implies a set of behaviors
and expectations that I think Matthew has rightly identified as
More information about the xdg