It might make more sense for window controls to also be status applets, since not all windows can be minimized, maximized, or closed. For instance, if a particular window is no longer needed and only showing some completed action, the close button could turn green. If there's an error, it could turn red. If a process could take a long time, a progress bar could appear and the minimize button could turn green. If a web browser could show a web page better with fullscreen, the maximize button could turn blue. This would follow the applet colour coding scheme.
One could even add some custom window commands (such as resize to content) to their applications.
>since not all windows can be minimized, maximized, or closed.
This is one of the worst usability problems on the desktop. Granted, it doesn't show up in the "default configuration" but do a little thing like change the text size and that dialog box that won't let you resize suddenly is completely broken.
Though I suppose this is part of a bigger problem, that changing fonts is by design a "power user" feature.
It would only work in a 'Mac World' where there was a set of interface guidelines that were not only religiously followed by developers, but also rigorously requested by users.
Yeah, but I don't know why they couldn't have just said "We're moving the buttons to the left to acclimate users and make way for a new feature we'll be introducing sometime in the near future, but are not ready to discuss right now." It would have been a lot nicer than their "because I said so" deal, which actually cost them at least one good developer (to my recollection; there was a story about it on here not that long ago, but it would be hard to find) who felt that Canonical became calloused to community desires.
Ah, I didn't see it; the only explanation I ever saw was "we said so, sorry". They probably should have tried to publicize this more. Do you have a link?
"Our intent is to encourage innovation, discussion, and design with the right of the window title bar. We have some ideas, and others are already springing up in the community."
Honestly, I'd've happily taken "because we want to remind people of the Mac, not win32" as a reason. Which is what I inferred and seemed perfectly good justification for a "we said so" type decision.
Of course, in light of this I may be blowing smoke out my ass here, but I'm still in favour of it for that reason even if it wasn't Canonical's reason.
It could be the iPhone. Or just Apple's old interfaces. Or tiling window managers, whose philosophy is to maximize screen usage by default. For instance, the Netbook edition smart panel example would integrate beautifully with Xmonad.
Ick! So they are taking the functionality of dock/bar icon apps and reproducing it in each window title bar? Seems needlessly complicated and cluttered to me. I prefer a simple, streamlined design myself.
Ick! So they are taking a chunk off the bottom of the window for a couple icons that could just as well have lived in the title bar? Seems needlessly complicated and cluttered; just put all the icons in one place.
I am not sure why this particular UI layout (and the infamous left-side buttons were at all necessary). There is another equally viable alternative, without all the complex re-engineering needed for "client side window decorations".
let the window controls and buttons stay as they were pre-lucid.
The left side button – the window control menu – will glow/shine when the application window has updated a status.
Clicking on the window control button will show a drop down that has (in addition to the “To Desktop”,”Resize”, “Maximize”, etc.) an alerts subsection. Clicking on the events in the alerts subsection will behave exactly the way windicators work in the above design.
Cons: rather than have all indicators in front of you at all times, you have to take the bother of clicking the window control button (or press alt-spacebar).
Pros: My mother doesnt need to be puzzled about what the green shiny button is supposed to indicate, in the drop down, I can have text as well as an icon.
Ubuntu user here. I am a bit wary of this change because it breaks the visual consistency from a desktop POV. In theory this idea is great if people used the same icons and conventions. Sadly consistency is not one of linux'es strong points. I fully expect java, tk, qt, gnome, wxwidgets to each design their own window decorators which behave / appear ever so different. Perhaps it would have been better to expose some inbuilt "Windicators" via a DBus service and applications that wanted to show a windicator could set a message to the DBUS service. To be fair maybe the Ubuntu folks have a perfect design for this, but since they havent released it its hard to be optimistic.
edit to add more pessimism - This will only make life more difficult for tiling window managers like ratpoison, xmonad, awesome that dont support window decorators, because many apps will go ahead and just assume the presence of a window decorator on every window.
I still don't get it. Why change the position of the controls and put indicators there? Why not use the left side for the indicators and remove the `arrow`?
Maybe I'm becoming one of the tinfoil hat people, but: They change the controls position and allow the application itself to draw the windicators. Application knows nothing about the controls position or the theme really, so it's possible that ubuntu applications will simply draw on the right. Suddenly people have to patch the applications to use them on another distribution and use themes that match what ubuntu apps try to do... Did I miss something?
All of this seems weird again when they presented screenshots with ~6 icons in the notification area as a "bad" example and now they put the same amount of icons per application (where applications can use their own icon styles).
Hey Mark, it would have been a good idea if you'd mentioned this in the context of the whole "buttons on the left" debacle. At least then there would have been some justification for the UI change other than the nebulous "frees up space nicely on the right".
The Ubuntu changes make me cringe - I like how windows are now, and this sort of change makes me hesitant to upgrade.
I like using Ubuntu, but several times when I've upgraded it trashed my system, or features didn't work right on an upgraded system while they did on a fresh install.
Those are the issues I think they need to work on - making it flawless for the masses to use. A bad upgrade experience for a normal user and they'll go running back to Mac/Windows. On top of that changing things like this will make it harder for normal users to find the buttons they're used to.
I'm not anti-progress, but it seems like you should make significant changes after you have a large market share.
Iterating on your product, like Canonical are doing with Ubuntu, makes a system that's BETTER than anything that ever came before. I couldn't wait to upgrade to 10.04 because so much new goodness.
It's like they're a lean startup, and this kind of stuff builds buzz that keeps them in the news. I suspect that their newsworthiness can only help in increasing marketshare.
im all for inovation. But his example was the worst.
Removing the status bar from the browser and using more space on the title?
Ive been using no title on my browser (go gtkrc) even before chrome. Because the tabs do the same work as the title (display page title) plus added funtionality. So its only natural to remove the title bar. Not add stuff there.
Or, you could look at the Netbook Edition smart panel, which eliminate the need for a title bar. Unless you don't use a global status bar at all, this could do.
You want to clutter up the window title bar with more garbage?
This is why Mac OS X is the only viable desktop Unix. Apple knows how to distinguish between the simple, elegant, and useful and the eye candy which distracts and interferes with attention.
