[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: [KDE Usability] Close button: reaaly close or go to system tray?
From:       Dotan Cohen <dotancohen () gmail ! com>
Date:       2010-01-31 18:54:25
Message-ID: 880dece01001311054s426a00d4i5f2a930da69fc9d () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 28 January 2010 23:17, todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Peter <gostelow@global.co.za> wrote:
>> System Service Applications run services that are independent of and distinct
>> from the applications themselves. In this respect an application opens and
>> closes windows _attached_ to the services. Closing such windows should not
>> close the underlying service, unless the window itself provides an option to
>> do so (close player service). Thus, closing such windows will cause it to
>> detach from the service and close itself. Since the service is _system_ wide,
>> closing the service may disrupted other users/apps who are currently
>> accessing the service.
>>
>> A system services app should default to closing the user interface only, and
>> run the services under a system tray icon. A close service option
>> additionally closes the services. Users, who do not wish to run services, may
>> check the 'close services' option before closing the app.
>>
>> An app, migrating toward system services, may elect, on a default close, to
>> instead minimize itself in the system tray and quit completely with the
>> 'close services' option. The minimize emulates closing the windows
>> (front-end) and running the services. This is a consession, allowing
>> developers time to refactor software without appearing obviously
>> inconsistent.
>
>
> Maybe the solution here is that, for these applications, you replace
> the "X" button with a completely different button, to make it clear
> that the application is not really closing.  There would be two
> buttons, the x button which always quits, and a second button which
> always keeps something running in the system tray.  Applications could
> use either or both buttons.
>
> So we would have three classes of applications.  A "normal"
> application has a close button, and when you click the close button
> the applications closes.  System services have the other button
> instead of the close button, so people are clear the window will close
> but the application will leave something running in the background
> when that button is clicked.  The third group could be applications
> like amarok or kopete where users sometimes want to close and
> sometimes want the application to keep running in the background.
> These applications could provide both buttons.
>
> I think this would make things clear and consistent across the board,
> without users having to wonder whether and application will behave
> like a service or behave like a "normal" application.  If users see a
> close button, they know the application will close completely when
> that button is clicked.  If users see the other button, they know the
> application will leave something running after that button is clicked
> even though the window is gone.  If users see both they know they can
> do either depending on what they feel like at the time.

This is exactly what I suggested above, and I agree 100%.

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il

Please CC me if you want to be sure that I read your message. I do not
read all list mail.
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]