![]() ![]() In general I would prefer that we don't copy the workflow of other desktop shells, because well that's not us. Mgraesslin wrote:Just like with GNOME Shell I do not know how Mission Control works. See mission control in action (state of two years ago): I think the way Mission Control on OS X works is the optimum, because there you can still create virtual desktops, even if they do not hold windows. In Gnome virtual Desktops are a bit too dynamic imho, because the shell automatically deletes unused Desktops (when there is no window), so there isn't anything static left. This organization (only showing the current desktop at large), makes organizing things much more efficient for a bigger number of virtual desktops, apart from that it would obsolete the present windows effect. Other actions that could be defined (like in gnome): When you drag a window between two virtual desktops, a new virtual desktop is created. Dynamic Desktops are kind of arranged only in one dimension and only one Desktop is shown at large and you can always delete a specific Desktop without going to any settings dialog. (The current situation isn't static either, because we can still add new desktops in the grid effect). If you have a static number of desktops you can arrange them in a grid, like we do currently. Mgraesslin wrote:Could someone please explain me what "dynamic workspaces" are supposed to be? I do not know GNOME Shell good enough. This would be an ideal starting point for me. It would help me to get started if Martin or luebking could answer that questions.įor those of you who do not know how it looks on OS X (called Mission Control if I am not wrong). I think this first question is the major question that has to be worked out before coming up with mockups.Īpart from that point 2 is hardly imaginable without a design similar to Gnome's.Ģ.) Do we plan to merge both, present windows and the desktop grid into one effect having all the features listed in your blog post?:Ĭlosing windows through a button shown on hoverģ.) A bit unrelated question, but out of interest: Will we support different number of desktops on different activities?Ĥ.) An idea I have been having for quite some time: Wouldn't it be great if the activity switcher kind of made use of of the effect we are about to design?ĥ.) Kind of a feature request that does not really need mockups: when one drags a window over another, could they be tabbed? I think that's quite intuitive and makes organizing things really efficient.Ħ.) Why not having additional buttons on hover if configured? like all buttons the user has configured for the window decoration? there shouldn't be a space problem.ħ.) something that is quite broken in the current design: what about closing windows that ask for confirmation? What can be done technically to handle that situation? can we detect such windows, or only guess through pinging the window? If there is no proper technical method, simply ignore that point and leave the situation as it is.Ĩ.) Will we support naming Desktops right in the effect? This is certainly something that has minor priority and can be added later.ĩ.) How is the state of different wallpapers/widgets for different desktops right now? I remember reading that was kind of difficult and currently a hack kind of using activities.ġ0.) Could we allow showing panels? I see no reason not to show them.ġ1.) Should every window be equally covered or should we group windows by application and relation (parent window etc.) like OS X does it? This would be really useful, because if you have Kmail open and have an own window for composing mails, it would be good if the composer window and the kmail one were visually grouped. For everything else the way OS X and Gnome do it is more efficient. Imho the grid is only useful if the number of virtual desktops is low (around 4 is the optimum on most laptop screens). But then the "grid" would not be a grid anymore. ![]() ![]() 1.) Do we aim to support dynamic virtual desktops? (like gnome does). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |