--nextPart65989332.MvhW1aL8Bl
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday 23 September 2009 23:24:43 you wrote:
> David Nolden wrote:
> > Better would be priorities like: Minor, Major, Critical, where plasma
> > should make sure that 'Critical' notifications are _always_ noticed be
> > the user, in whatever ways, and the others could be configurable. Major
> > could be something like "Got message from ..." in kopete, and minor cou=
ld
> > be something like "Person ... went online".
>=20
> I would think more categories than that. I'd expect a network error to
> be higher importance than an incoming message, yet it isn't critical.
> (I'd like to reserve 'critical' for things that really are, e.g. system
> is about to turn off :-).)

The problem with adding too many classifications is that developers don't k=
now=20
how to classify any given notification.  Is Frobbling a Quite Major or Very=
=20
Major (or only Moderately Major) notification?

Maybe making them more semantic would be better.  Informational (eg: user c=
ame=20
online), Alert (eg: user is chatting to you), Error (eg: can't connect to t=
he=20
network), Critical Error (your computer is about to go bang).

Anyway, details about priorities are something that should probably be hash=
ed=20
out separately.  I think a priority system would be very useful, though -=20
filtering out informational and alert messages in a presentation, for examp=
le,=20
would be very useful.

Alex


=2D-=20
Why have I got six monitors?  Because I haven't got room for eight.
  -- Terry Pratchett

--nextPart65989332.MvhW1aL8Bl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkq6xc8ACgkQBRauKLutZ9CkgACdFIA5uZgUlg3Dd3ahFDPnq23C
paYAoIWxj5XKaKF2D0bsLC71/JVDwSb+
=z1E3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart65989332.MvhW1aL8Bl--