Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon

Bug #733349 reported by mlaverdiere on 2011-03-11
This bug affects 522 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Ayatana Design
Undecided
John Lea
Obsolete project please ignore
Undecided
Unassigned
Unity
Fix Released
Wishlist
Christopher Townsend
Unity Tweak Tool
Undecided
Sam Hewitt
unity (Ubuntu)
Wishlist
Christopher Townsend

Bug Description

What I do miss in Unity is the possibility to click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of that application, not only to launch/restore it.
mlaverdiere's futher addition: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2

My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):

1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
*2) restore it, if it is minimized;
*3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus yet;
4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows open;
*5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).

Note that this bug has over 300 comments and several working but rejected patches. This means that this feature probably will never land in official Unity! So if you want it, you have to use a patched version of Unity.

There is a working patch for 13.04 ( from comment #322, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+attachment/3573380/+files/minimize.patch ). Somebody should set up a PPA (and note it here) to make it easy to install the patched version.

Related branches

Mirco Müller (macslow) wrote :

The intended behaviour according to the interaction-design is this:

1.) start it, if it hasn't been started yet
2.) focus the app, if it's started and has not the focus yet
3.) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows open
4.) unspread if in spread-mode (see 3.)

For the time being this is a "Won't fix". To discuss a new feature, do so on the ayatana mailing list (with the design-folks) here:

https://launchpad.net/~ayatana or <email address hidden>

Changed in unity:
status: New → Won't Fix
Omer Akram (om26er) on 2011-03-25
Changed in unity (Ubuntu):
status: New → Won't Fix
mlaverdiere (mlaverdiere) wrote :

@Mirco: Thanks for explaining what the intended behaviour is, Now, let's talk about the expected behaviour! ;-)

More seriously: I'm testing Natty/Unity since 2 months now and I still miss the minimize function upon reclicking on the launcher icon. Again, rightly or wrongly, this is how other desktop behaves and since many of us have to use these other environments (namely various Win flavours) from time to time, I think this expectation won't go away...

My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):

1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
*2) restore it, if it is minimized;
*3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus yet;
4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows open;
*5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).

Consider this a wish!

Thanks.

tekstr1der (tekstr1der) wrote :

Is there a specific discussion on this in ayatana currently?

I agree entirely mlaverdiere's comment #2. That is the expected behavior from a launcher.

I hate to do this, but I have to add my "me too" to this bug.

Seriously last night when I was trying beta 1 I was shocked that I could not minimize a window without going to the minimize button. Honestly it got rather annoying (no seriously I mean annoying, not just buggy - annoying) after a while.

There wasn't even an option in the right-click menu (jumplist?) to minimize - and I found that surprising as well. Trust me, new users won't be very happy about this, so please, for the sake of new users at least, fix this issue, and if you want the intended behaviour - then make it an option, just not default D:!

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

why break peoples expectations? "minimize on click" is provided by all taskbar-window-switchers and from all linux docks as well, too.
So you leave the experienced user in frustration while the inexperienced user will not be mocked by minimizing on an extra click he probably never makes.

Please consider add an option for this behavior in future releases!

If we had a Windows 7-style window selector displayed on hover then the behaviour could be:

1) Open/restore window
2) On hover, display window selector alongside icon
3) On click, minimise window

This would both match people's expectations and provide an easy way to switch between open windows.

Jorge Ortega (jorge-ortega111) wrote :

Not being able to minimize from the bar icons is my main grievance with Unity. As far as I'm concerned this is a bug and should be fixed.
Regards

Rocko (rockorequin) wrote :

One functional regression of the global menu bar is that you can't minimize maximized applications that are showing a modal popup window. (eg run Synaptic maximized and while it is reloading or applying updates, you can't minimize it because the global menu bar shows the window control buttons for the progress window.) It would sure be useful to have the ability to minimize from the unity launcher instead, even if it were just via a right-click menu option.

Another use case for minimizing from the launcher is if I want to quickly check something in an application. eg if I'm working on something in libre office and I click on unity's Thunderbird icon to quickly check on the contents of an email I have open, I would much rather just click on the Thunderbird icon again to get back to libre office, instead of being forced to move the mouse around looking for Thunderbird's minimize buttons or for libre office's launcher application. Unity's current implementation results in slower (and more frustrating) workflow in this case, and for me, this is a use case I frequently encounter.

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

Rocko wrote 5 hours ago: #9

"One functional regression of the global menu bar is that you can't minimize maximized applications that are showing a modal popup window. (eg run Synaptic maximized and while it is reloading or applying updates, you can't minimize it because the global menu bar shows the window control buttons for the progress window.) It would sure be useful to have the ability to minimize from the unity launcher instead, even if it were just via a right-click menu option."

this is soooo true! is there a separate bug about this maximized background window issue? that is so confusing I git into that trap several times. So I would subscribe and click on "affected" for that bug instantly. (or file it)

Rocko (rockorequin) wrote :

Yes, I reported bug #762277 for that issue.

Michael (michaeljt) wrote :

Discussed this with a colleague with a different background and it quickly became apparent that the expected workflow here is not to re-minimise the application you are no longer using, but to simply switch to the one that you do want to use, and if you don't want the application-to-be-minimised to be covering other windows move it to its own workspace, so that selecting it in the dock automatically switches you to that.

Cas (calumlind) wrote :

This is a major bug bear for me since installing natty.

> not to re-minimise the application you are no longer using, but to simply switch to the one that you do want to use

I think it is intuitive that you click the button to re-minimise.

As Rocko mentioned, quickly checking an app and then going back to original work currently requires extra mouse and eye movement which I think is annoying and distracts from the your work flow.

If single clicking once an app is open and highlighted serves no other purpose, why not allow the option to minimize?

The app indicator functionality is single click to open and optional single click to close.

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

I believe it's generally not a good idea that clicking on an interactive element of your screen leads to NOTHING.
Some users will wonder whether their system is responding slow, experienced users who are used to the minimize behaviour will miss it.
(and you know, many of them are already frustrated enough losing Gnome 2 features.....)

please change that, when you don't click a second or third time, you won't even notice the "extra" minimize feature! So no one is bothered by the minimize feature, but many are bothered if it is missing.

Rocko (rockorequin) wrote :

Does anyone know the reason behind the design decision to _not_ implement minimize in unity, or the location of the design webpage?

Michael (michaeljt) wrote :

I'm sure that if you ask on the Ayatana mailing list they will be happy to explain, and perhaps to discuss, the reasoning.

John Lea (johnlea) on 2011-04-20
description: updated
Changed in ayatana-design:
assignee: nobody → John Lea (johnlea)
importance: Undecided → Low
status: New → Fix Committed
tags: added: udo
summary: - Natty: Unity launcher buttons should allow to minimize apps, not just
- launch/restore
+ Add 'minimize all windows'Natty: Unity launcher buttons should allow
+ to minimize apps, not just launch/restore
summary: - Add 'minimize all windows'Natty: Unity launcher buttons should allow
- to minimize apps, not just launch/restore
+ Add 'minimize all windows' option to the quicklist of running
+ applications
Changed in unity:
status: Won't Fix → New
Didier Roche (didrocks) on 2011-04-20
Changed in unity (Ubuntu):
status: Won't Fix → New
Changed in unity:
status: New → Triaged
Changed in unity (Ubuntu):
status: New → Triaged
John Lea (johnlea) on 2011-04-20
Changed in unity:
status: Triaged → New
Changed in unity (Ubuntu):
status: Triaged → New
John Lea (johnlea) on 2011-04-20
tags: removed: udo
Changed in ayatana-design:
status: Fix Committed → Won't Fix

Status changed to Won't Fix as this change is not in keeping with design. The cost of the extra chrome outweighs the net gain from this change. The current behaviour has been shown to work well in user testing, however we will watch out for this issue to in future user testing.

Alex Launi (alexlauni) on 2011-04-20
Changed in unity:
status: New → Won't Fix
Changed in unity (Ubuntu):
status: New → Won't Fix
Rocko (rockorequin) wrote :

@John Lea: The change you made in the summary and description totally ignores what I think is the primary point made in the report, ie that just clicking on the application icon/button should minimize the app if one of its windows currently has the focus, the lack of which is a major flaw in the design IMO.

This bug now looks like it is only about adding a menu option to minimize the application's windows. But this was first mentioned as a related point in comment #4.

Did you intend to do this? Can you track the request for the menu option in a separate bug?

Rocko, no, clicking on the icon will not minimise the app.

We have a minimise button for that, it's prominent.

 status opinion

Mark

Changed in ayatana-design:
status: Won't Fix → Opinion

Mark, what I don't understand in this case is that :

-it's the standard behavior in Gnome, so people are used to it

-I agree that you can use the icon to minimize, but what if you want to minimize several applications ? You have to move your mouse a lot. Using a click in the taskbar is very quick

-and last but not least, it's not like if this option was replacing another more interesting behavior ! And it's exactly how it's working for the "applications" and "files & folders" lenses ! You click, it opens. You click again, it hides it. I really find it a pity that this click is not used. Especially as it's the simplest operation on a lens. A "right click" + something is much longer.

I guess I should write all this on the Ayatana ML. But I tried to get used to this behavior, and I still find myself clicking on the application icons and waiting. Maybe it's a bad habit. And even if it's one, I still think it's a pity to waste this click. Maybe the minimize function is not the right one for it, I'm open to any good idea. But as of today, it's wasted to me. Too bad, Unity is quite good at making things efficient, a single click is still something worth using I think :)

Michael (michaeljt) wrote :

I will play the devil's advocate, as I can't make up my mind which behaviour I would prefer. But in defence of the current behaviour it has a certain consistency that the minimising proposal doesn't. Currently if you click twice on the icon you know that all the applications windows will be displayed, without a zoom if you only have one window. With the minimising proposal you would have to check whether the application has one or several windows open to know if two clicks will show all windows or hide the one window. You gain speed in one case by sacrificing it in another, possibly more common case.

François Tissandier (baloo) wrote :

I forgot about this multi-windows option...

But playing with it brings me to the same conclusion:
-I have 3 terminals on my desktop
-i click the lens, it shows me an expose view of the 3 terminals.
-if click on the lens again to "close" this expose view, and nothing happens.

Maybe I have terrible habits, but that's the first thing I noticed why trying it.

Michael (michaeljt) wrote :

Yes, I found that rather annoying too. Don't know what the reasoning was for not exiting the zoom view again, although I'm sure there must be one.

Rocko (rockorequin) wrote :

@Mark: absolutely, it is quite clear that clicking on the application icon again doesn't minimize the window. My point is that this is exactly what the original report said, and John Lea changed it to say something quite different, ie that there is no minimize option when you right-click on the icon. Why change the bug to say something different? Why not just open a new bug?

And I agree of course that the minimize button is prominent. But it's nowhere near as prominent as the application icon in unity-launcher, and more importantly you have to go searching for it, which I find inefficient from a workflow point of view. This is particularly true on a high resolution screen where the window buttons are quite small and may be at the other side of the screen from the application icon that you just clicked to activate the window. (Even a year after 10.04 came out, I still think the minimize button should not be so small and located next to the close button, as it's too easy to click the close button by accident.)

And there are even instances where there is no minimize button - eg in a maximized Synaptic with the progress window open.

I know unity was originally designed for netbooks, which have small screens, but it's a great product that I want to use on my high resolution desktop. It's just that there some things like this that make it less efficient to use on a desktop than, say, DockbarX, Avant Window Manager, or the original Gnome button taskbar.

On a slightly different topic, as an absolute design minimum, wouldn't it be better to have the application icon at least do something when you click on it if it isn't actually going to change the screen? Perhaps perform an animation? This would give some feedback to the user that he has successfully clicked on the icon, even if he finds it frustrating that it doesn't minimize the window.

tekstr1der (tekstr1der) wrote :

I consider this issue to be the single biggest usability problem with Unity currently. I've followed the Ayatana discussion thread on this topic and I'm very disappointed.

1) I'm disappointed in the way that this bug/request was misconceived and misconstrued by the developers. Adding a right-click context menu option is every bit as distracting as the current behavior, and is useless to me. With that "solution", the user must divert his attention to find the menu item, and minimizing the focused app takes two mouse clicks in separate areas of the screen.

2) The requested behavior is universal to docks. Common examples where desired behavior can be found are: a linux distro with a dock (docky, awn, cairo, etc), Mac OSX dock, Windows 7 taskbar. I know Ubuntu wants to be different, but at the cost of usability, is it really worth it? I’m a Ubuntu user, but admit Win7 really nails it when it comes to dock functionality.

3) The requested behavior only adds, not changes, functionality. Currently, clicking on a launcher who's associated window has focus does… nothing.

4) The current behavior is wildly frustrating when you’d like to quickly check the status of a running application. Currently, you click the associated launcher to bring focus (this is good), but then need to hunt down the little minimize button for that window, which, if not maximized could be virtually anywhere. This is highly distracting to workflow.

5) Instead, clicking the launcher again to minimize the focused app, as requested originally in this bug report, is quick, easy, distraction-free fun. And, is the expected behavior from a dock/launcher.

6) Please?

Cas (calumlind) on 2011-04-21
summary: - Add 'minimize all windows' option to the quicklist of running
- applications
+ Minimize windows upon clicking application's launcher
description: updated

John accidentally misdirected the bug report, that's not a conspiracy,
just an accident. It would have been better to open a separate bug. As
it happens, we won't put this on the quicklist either.

Apps that don't have minimise icons either have a reason for that, or
are buggy.

@tekstr1der: currently, clicking on the icon ALWAYS ensures you SEE the
app. Adding minimise will add complications... when would it show the
window? When would it show a spread of that apps windows? When would it
minimise.

Adding is not always improving.

Mark

I'm the original reporter for this bug/request report and I still believe (after I've read all the above comments) that minimizing upon clicking the launcher's icon would make sense, be great and would not be disruptive in any workflow I can imagine.

That being said, I had a chance to play with a Mac in the last days and clicking on the the dock/launcher app. doesn't seem to trigger windows/apps minimizing (maybe it's just the particular configuration of the Mac I've tried....?). My point here is not to suggest that OSx is THE reference for UI design's decision, far from it, but just to point point out that there is no absolute truth about the current issue.

I suppose that, at some point, good design/conception decisions could be based on the average user's expectations, for a given platform/OS/UI/etc., at a given time...

dart (dart-v85) wrote :

A show desktop icon on unity launcher by default will solve the problem to some extent as it will minimize all active windows in one click and bring focus on a clean desktop. There is a keyboard shortcut alt+ctrl+d that does the same thing but not everyone is used to keyboard shortcuts. But this is not ideal solution if one wants to minimize one/multiple instances of only one app (e.g nautilus) and not all.

Michael (michaeljt) wrote :

I could imagine a longer (two seconds?) click on the launcher icon hiding all windows for an application.

Yes, we'll also consider a show-desktop launcher icon.

+1 for show desktop icon/function (but there's another bug report - and some workarounds with compiz settings - for this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/681348)

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

I want to add a typical case to the Issue François described:

François Tissandier wrote 21 hours ago: #22
"
I forgot about this multi-windows option...

But playing with it brings me to the same conclusion:
-I have 3 terminals on my desktop
-i click the lens, it shows me an expose view of the 3 terminals.
-if click on the lens again to "close" this expose view, and nothing happens.
"

A typical case for that is, when you click the the lense/launcher/button (however you call it) by mistake:
Now you have a expose view window spread of several windows of which you want none. Now, the only way to get out of that state, is selecting one window. Although you don't need it!
It's bothering to have to select a window you don't need!
Easier and more intuitive would be to simply click again: "Oh, I made a mistake, I click again so it's gone."
Just as many other UI-elements.

By the way, the frustrations generated by the bugs behaviour on the desktop is very similar to the frustration caused by the bug treatment here on launchpad:
* you click on the icon, and nothing happens.
* you give reasonable arguments on launchpad to change this, but nothing happens. (not even an explanation why the selected behaviour should be more useful)

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

Another approach could be:
MAKE IT AN OPTION!

Hide the option however you could, so that the "normal user" will never see it, but give at least us "Fanboys" the option.

The thing I can't stand on apple computers is, that apple dictates the users how to use the computer. Canonical seems to go that way and that makes me lose trust in Canonical... :-(

Rubén (cont3mpo) wrote :

Now on Unity:
1. Clicking an icon of a focused (maximize) window: Does nothing (?)
2. Clicking an icon of a minimize window: Does Maximizes (intuitive)
3. Clicking an icon with two or more windows: Spread Mode of the windows (really nice)

Then, why the Launcher maximize one window but not minimize the same window? It is more intuitive that the launcher minimize and maximize the same window. The button of the windows exist for that, but is more intuitive for the user; minimize/maximize the same window on the launcher.

http://askubuntu.com/questions/36433/why-cant-i-use-the-unity-launcher-icon-to-minimize-applications-windows

"Not gonna happen? Why not? DockbarX allows you to do that same thing... Futhermore, compiz 0.9 is SUPPOSED to support showing minimized window thumbnails. Why would it be so hard? "

I quoted my own comment here. Now let me reiterate. DockbarX allows you to have both behaviours, and unity SHOULD as well (it's simple common sense. Sorry Mark, but we are not Mac users and we are not trying to be so stop trying to ape Mac (sorry if that offends, but let's be honest)).

It is simple common sense to me that if you:
 - Click on a single window's icon, it minimizes or restores the window (so long as the window supports it.
 - Click on multiple windows' icon, it should enter scale mode (common sense!)
 - Probably double click on multiple windows' icon: minimize or restore all (for example, chat applications).

What's so hard, confusing, or unintuitive about that?

BTW I would just use the ayatana mailing list, but:
1. It doesn't seem to receive my msgs.
2. I'm not convinced that our feedback has a REAL impact there (not convinced yet at least).

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

btw, this would be a nice additional option to the "Launcher and Menus" Setting which momentary only include one single solitude option ("show the launcher when the pointer:"): http://i.imgur.com/f4q6k.png

Bigmoew (bigmoew) wrote :

How about one click to either minimize a single window or go into expose mode for multiple windows with an addition click to minimize??

Rasto (rasto-klc) wrote :
Download full text (3.4 KiB)

Unity launcher's behavior is terrible.
It does not make sense and is absolutely not intuitive.
I have just let 4 people to play around with Ubuntu 11.04.
There was about 10 things they did not get.
One of them was always unexpected behavior of launcher.
They wanted that it does something.
They thought it stopped responding - because it did, it was doing something before (focusing window, showing window selection, ...) and it does not continue anymore - it broke the chain, did not satisfy user.

It should be doing cycle, it is logical, it is reversible, user has more control, it is robust,

PROPOSED BEHAVIOR:

1) I click and you show me what is under this icon:
   1.a - open first instance of app (run and focus) or

   1.b - focus app if it is minimized/out-of-focus, even if there is many of them (show me what I was working on last, I am looking for something obviously under this icon)

2) I click again and you do not break my experience:
   - so multiple windows/apps are opened now and focus is on one of them (we may not notice that there are many windows, of course)
   - so right now we can see single window focused and we want more out of it (I guess we would not be clicking anymore if we do not expect more)

   2.a - show me all the apps so I can select one (user sees that pretty animation and selects what he wants, but perhaps he did not want that, he might wanted something else, or just wanted to check on something, so there MUST be way out without selecting one of the applications!)

   2.b - if there is just single window opened then finish the cycle with step 3 (minimize it, show the user there is nothing more he/she can do)

3) I am clicking again and getting back to beginning
   - for single window or multiple spread applications
   - do not worry designers, because all those people who did not expect anything they will not click (or will they?)

   3.a - minimize single app (there is no more to do, let the user know, if this was not expected, then he will click on that icon again, do not worry, it is going in cycle)

   3.b - unfocus (back to state 1) and hide multiple windows selection from step 2.a (what else do you want to do? user wants something! he is the boss, he just clicked - obviously he does not want to select one of the apps - this is essential. Maybe he did not find what he was looking for, maybe he just did. Go back to beginning, give him something familiar, let him cycle if he wants to do that one more time.

IT IS SIMPLE:
Users that do not need this multiple click functionality will simply not make that extra click (well, but they are clicking even now, I guess they are looking for something more, they just not getting it)

AGAIN:
Maybe somebody got lost in the process so here is recapitulation, it is essentially what everybody is saing:

A) got single or no app
1. click - run/focus app
2. click - minimize app

B) got multiple windows:
1. click - bring me my last app (or skip this step if app is already in focus)
2. click - show me all the apps
3. click - revert back to exact state as it was before 1. click

FINAL REMARKS:
And for gods, make it configurable! so power users can adjust it an averages have pretty...

Read more...

manny (estelar57) wrote :

Maybe expose can be more useful and show the options the user wants. So i made this quick mockup just to get an idea of the possibilities.

i think is win win for both parties :)

note:
am not so good at mockups, so i hope is not too terrible :o

Rubén (cont3mpo) wrote :

@Rasto: Too many clicks and differents behaviors in your proposed, keep simple and cool. Spread Mode show all the windows when are too many apps.

Like i say up...
Actual behavior in Unity:
1. Clicking an icon of a focused (maximize) window: Does nothing (?)
2. Clicking an icon of a minimize window: Does Maximizes (intuitive)
3. Clicking an icon with two or more windows: Spread Mode of the windows (really nice)

Now is simple, but the point 1 is failing (Does nothing).
Keep simple behavior in the launcher and add "minimize" on the icon, that's all we want.

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

@Cont3mpo:
Rasto's proposed behaviour IS simple, don't get confused by all the cases and explanations he mentioned:
basically, it IS the current behaviour
+ minimize at the click when currently nothing happens anymore
+ the cycle.
So I agree with Rasto... ...apart that from https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/689733 it should be mentioned, that expose should only show windows from the current workspace. [or from all one click later or by option].

@manny:
This looks good and useful, but still it requires more mouse movement than simply clicking the icon again (which are people used to and requires no mouse movement at all).

I can only re-iterate my suggestion from earlier, with a slight alteration:

"If we had a Windows 7-style window selector displayed on hover then the behaviour could be:

1) Open/restore window(s)
2) On hover, display window selector alongside icon
3) On click, minimise all windows

This would both match people's expectations and provide an easy way to switch between open windows."

The expose is what makes this complicated. As a work-around, Rasto's idea would be OK, but I do think it's fairly complicated as the launcher is always doing something different (though no more complicated than the current behaviour which is totally confusing and just makes the launcher seem broken).

Remove expose (ie. place that functionality in a nice window selector) and the launcher only has two jobs: launching apps and minimising them. If there is one window, click to restore, click to minimise. If there are multiple windows I would say that clicking the launcher icon should minimise ALL windows of that app because there is currently no GUI way of doing so, whereas if you just want to mimimise the top window you can just hit the mimimise button. Click again to restore. It's simple, understandable and predictable.

Marek Stasiak (marecki) wrote :

It's annoying that I can't minimize any app by just clicking/scrolling them on launcher... like in others desktop environments!

Rasto (rasto-klc) wrote :

Sorry, it was late night and I might expressed myself complicated.
It looks like only Bazon got what I wanted to say.

My proposed behavior is exactly the same as it works right now, but there is that extra enhancement, when nothing happens anymore. Here it is once more:

+ when multiple windows are spread and exposed, next click will go back to hide the "spread" and the cycle can start all over again - that is the beauty of it (right now you can click all you want and nothing happens - that is unnatural)

+ same thing goes for single window, if it is in focus, next click will hide it (minimize it, right now that click does not do anything)

Please do not imagine what I just said, try it, run bunch of applications and try to do something useful.
Here are some practical example.

CASE:
I am writing e-mail in Firefox, giving quote to customer. I have LibreOffice Calc opened somewhere which contains some calculations, materials etc. So I go to launcher, find that opened spreadsheet and click on its icon, it focuses as expected, I check few numbers and without even moving mouse I click on it again to make it go away, so I can compare those numbers from Calc against e-mail. Nothing happens, and I am clicking again... So finally I would have to go with mouse to my e-mail and maybe forgot those numbers by the time I get there :) Maybe I have opened few browsers with bunch of websites where I get my supplies for project, and I am getting a bit angry :(

And of course I have project's blueprint opened and calculator, dictionary and customer's previous e-mails... That is why I need that visual feedback, to check to quickly asses.

Moral of the story is that users behavior was expected (clicking again) but response to that expectation was not met. If I brought the window (or expose them) with click why doesn't that action have complementary action with the following click?

And do not tell me that I should clearly be using keyboard shortcuts, because then maybe I do not even need mouse or even launcher or GUI or with that line of thoughts I might go straight for different OS :(

FINAL THOUGHT 1:
What if pressing ALT+TAB (switching among apps), would just stop at the last app?
Try it! Run few apps, hold down ALT and press TAB few times, now imagine that it does not go in cycle.
How does it feel? Discomforting isn't it?
Well that is exactly how I feel when pressing that icon in launcher - it could do something more (even something very expected), but for no reason it wont...

FINAL THOUGHT 2:
If I turn on light with "switch" should I not be able to turn it off with the same "switch"? Perhaps, that is what people expect since childhood so please do not tell me it is not intuitive.

Give it second thought, please, make it right.

JT (spikyjt) wrote :

Here's another reason for needing this expected functionality. I have my email open maximised. I also have another window which has focus. I want minimize the email window to use something below or for some other reason (I personally use a large resolution screen, so am not just using one window at a time). To minimize my unfocussed, maximised window, I have to first focus the window and then find its minimize button in the top bar, as the title bar has been absorbed into the top bar, which contains the menu of the currently focussed window. This is an irritatingly lengthy process, relative to the usual taskbar method. I'm aware that this only affects large screen users, but it is a regular scenario for me.

Fabio Rodriguez (realgt) wrote :

if people keep wanting this feature it should be an option, at least

otherwise it clearly becomes an 'if you don't like it, don't use Ubuntu' ultimatum

Until Unity gets a more easily accessible minimize function, you can use Alt-F9 which minimizes the current window (or assign another keyboard shortcut).

And for windows that can't be minimized there's "Lower winow below other windows". There's no keyboard shortcut for this (it's not even in the window right-click menu), but you can add one from System Settings --> Keyboard Shortcuts.

I have Super+Z as a shortcut for "Lower window below others" and does exactly what I think was missing from Unity (and it's IMO very nice to have Gnome 2 as well).

I meant to say "and it's IMO very nice to have *in* Gnome 2" in my comment. I think Unity is very nice, except for a few limitations and bugs :)

This bug needs to be changed back to "Unity launcher buttons should allow to minimize apps, not just
 launch/restore"

Here's why: https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/msg05594.html

The launcher follows an app-centric paradigm like OS X and the "dock". I doubt a lot of thought went into this when designing Unity (judging by the lack of replies) but this is not for here. Now that we are stuck with this OS X like app-centric interface let's look at what their Dock is doing:

There's a hide option in the context right-click/long-click menu, this functionality is expected by people using app-centric as well as window-centric interfaces. Adding it to the Launcher will come at absolutely no cost in terms of usability as far as I can see.

Like in OS X other useful option could be put there as well: force quit, hide others, open at login. Visual separator avoid clutter and some options are hidden by default and only toggled when pressing the alt key.

Screenshot of a Dock menu: http://i.imgur.com/z5Aw6.jpg

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

Please consider this: I click an icon (say a browser) to see if anything new has appeared inside it. If not, I immediately reclick to minimize that window and resume my previous work.

By breaking the symmetry of show/minimize, I now have to move the mouse before I can resume work. What was an instant action now takes thought.

So another +1 here. Please bring this back!

LostOverThere (lostoverthere) wrote :

Yes, this desperately needs to be fixed. I'm quite a fan of Unity myself, but nothing infuriates me more than this. I hope this is being discussed on the mailing list. :)

Bring this feature back, or at the very least, give us the option to enable it.

I agree that clicking on it should minimise. it's really annoying to have to click on the minimise button and i find the attitude portrayed by the staff of "oh, we don't want that. we won't fix it" to be atrocious especially when there are so many comments that show the user base would prefer this to be fixed.

Changed in ayatana-design:
status: Opinion → Incomplete
z3z (z3z) wrote :

Have to agree with the commenters that clicking should minimise the app. I may want to quickly glance at something in Firefox, whilst, say, working in the terminal. I click a nice largish icon on the dock to bring Firefox to the front, read some text, then I should be able to click the icon again to minimise. Instead I have to move the mouse up to the top of the screen (I have a large monitor) and move to the minimise button which, compared to icons in the dock, is very small and requires a far higher level of accuracy with the mouse. This takes so much more time.

I understand the comments about users' expected behaviour with dock and taskbar icons and I agree to an extent. I'm not against changing default behaviours if there is a good reason for it, however I don't understand why forcing users to use a little minimise button, instead of a big friendly icon is a change for the better. To say that there is a minimise button in the app window isn't really a reason. There was *always* a minimise button there yet people generally prefer to click on the taskbar icon to maximise and minimise apps. Users will always take the path of least resistance, the way that requires the minimum effort, so they'll pick a large icon over a small button every time.

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

This is now the bug with most affected users in ayanta design.

Krishna (krishnab) wrote :

Yes.. It would be nice if the minimize option is also incorporated for launchers.
Also there could be possibly animations like Awn manager.

cbsim (cbsim) wrote :

This is a problem for me since I'm using touchscreen, using unity icon to minimize is much more finger friendly than using the tiny minimize icon.

Vladimir Kooznetsov (xiiinon) wrote :

I don't see any complications with minimizing active window by left-click on it's icon in Windows 7 or KDE or Gnome. So yes, for me it is a unity bug.

Design team and Mark: please, consider this. :)

REASONS FOR THE CHANGE:

The current behaviour is consistent, because it *always* show the window(s) of given application when the launcher icon is clicked. However, it breaks user expectation in some situations, when clicking the launcher icon does absolutly nothing.

This problem was already discussed a lot in the ayatana mailing list and a lot of (partial) solutions was proposed. I've tried to get the best part of them and make a complete (at least, I think it's complete) proposed solution that, in my opinion, makes unity more intuitive.

CURRENT BEHAVIOUR:

Right now, one click open a new window, if not already opened, and then cicle through the steps:
 a. focus latest used window, if not focused
 b. open spread view, if there is more than one window opened

PROPOSED SOLUTION:

The proposed solution is to add a step 'c' that minimizes all the windows.

This solution will not be enabled by default, but could be enabled in ccsm. Something like:
[X] Minimize windows when launcher icon is clicked

DETAILED EXPLANATION:

Each number represents a different situation and each letter represents a click in the launcher icon.

1. If there is no opened window for that app
 a. Open a new window
2. If there is only one opened window for that app
 a. Focus the window, if not focused
 b. Minimize the window
 c. Restore the window
 d. Goto 2.a
3. If there is more than one opened window for that app
 a. Focus the latest used window, if not focused
 b. Open spread view
 c. Close spread view and minimize all windows of that app
 d. Restore the latest used window
 e. Goto 3.a

PRACTICAL EXAMPLE:

I have two terminals and a Firefox window opened. Both three windows are not minimized. The FF window has the focus.

i. Click the FF launcher icon. The FF window minimizes
ii. Click it again. FF window restore and get focused
iii. Click the terminal launcher icon. The latest used terminal window get focused
iv. Click it again. The spread view is opened for the two terminal windows
v. Click one of the terminal windows. The clicked window get focused
vi. Click the terminal launcher icon. The spread view is opened again
vii. Click it again. Both terminal window get minimized and FF window get focused
ix. Click the FF launcher icon. The FF window minimizes. Desktop get focused
x. Click the terminal launcher icon again. Both terminal windows restore and the latest window used get focused

Cas (calumlind) wrote :

Marco Biscaro on Ayatana Mailing List (https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/msg05553.html)
> It's very simple: there is one dash to one launcher icon. The same for
indicators: one menu for each indicator.
> Again, the problem with launcher icons is: each application can have
zero or more windows.
> On GNOME desktop and on Windows, a click on the panel/taskbar minimize
the window because each window has an "button" on panel/taskbar.
> Instead of just criticize the current design, why don't you write a
specification and mockups to propose changes? They can be discussed
here, on the mailing list, and implemented for Oneiric (it's too late to
changes for Natty).
>All kind of improvements are welcome, but we need something concrete and
well defined. :-)

The only reason you not implementing this is because of multiple windows?! Clearly you never used Docky as they managed it just fine by minimizing ALL windows. Just to add, Windows XP had window grouping and then a 'minimize group' on right click.

You do not need a mockup as everyone who has commented on this bug has expressed identically use case scenarios that make perfect sense. That's 50 or so replies reiterating the OP's proposal, I think that is pretty concrete and defined to me.

I have yet to read a single comment that makes a valid argument against implementing this proposal. The resistance by the developers is rather odd considering that Unity is meant to improve the user experience.

BUG is still there in the final Natty and it's a bit annoying to click on the launcher of a maximized window and nothing happens, i expect that the window minimizes.
why there is no option in the unity plugin of compiz where all the users which don't like actual behaviour could change that?

IcyJ (jeremy-michelle) wrote :

This also affects me. I agree with above, at minimum, it would be great if this was an option available in compiz-config.

I've made a script to workaround this issue. See at askubuntu: http://askubuntu.com/questions/36433/why-cant-i-use-the-unity-launcher-icon-to-minimize-applications-windows/39851#39851
See this working: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfLxVsvUZTs .

**Simplified Instructions**

**1)** We will need <a href="http://apt.ubuntu.com/p/xdotool">XDoTool</a> and <a href="http://apt.ubuntu.com/p/compizconfig-settings-manager">Compiz</a>.

   You can install these from the *Ubuntu Software Center* or by clicking <a href="http://apt.ubuntu.com/p/xdotool">here (xdotool)</a> and <a href="http://apt.ubuntu.com/p/compizconfig-settings-manager">here (Compiz)</a>

**2)** Open Compiz (<kbd>Alt</kbd> + <kbd>F2</kbd> and type `ccsm` and hit <kbd>Enter</kbd>)

**3)** Go to Commands and add `~/.minimize.sh` to one command (for example command 8):

**4)** Then go to Button Binding and make a shortcut for it (for example alt+button1).

**5)** Now go to "General Options" and set a Button Binding to minimize (use the same modifier key of step "4" and Button2 - *if you want you can change the script as you like to fit another button*).

**6)** Make a file named .minimize.sh at your home folder (`gedit ~/.minimize.sh`). Paste this and save:

<pre>
#!/bin/bash
#
# by desgua
#
# To minimize a window with Unity
#
# note: it wont work if multiple windows
# from the same app are open
######################################
sleep 0.1
xdotool click --clearmodifiers 1
win=$(xdotool getactivewindow)
eval $(xdotool getmouselocation --shell)
xdotool mousemove -window $win 0 2
xdotool click 2
xdotool mousemove $X $Y
exit 0
</pre>

**7)** Make it executable.

**8)** Enjoy! ;-)

Extender (msveshnikov) on 2011-05-04
Changed in ayatana-design:
status: Incomplete → Confirmed

@André: the workarround does not work as expected (at least to me) because it does not focus the window before minimizing it (if I have a window on second plane, I need two clicks to give focus to it).

@Extender: please, don't change the bug status on ayatana-design. Leave this task to someone from design team. Thanks.

Changed in ayatana-design:
status: Confirmed → New
shinyblue (shinyblue) wrote :

+1 for the minimise function.

Also, @MarkShuttleworth is wrong when he says "clicking on the icon ALWAYS ensures you SEE the app.".

e.g. If you elect to have windows focus when the mouse moves over them (very useful trad. GNU feature) then here's what happens:

1. You have -say- firefox open, but another window is covering all of it except perhaps a tiny left edge. You want to use firefox.

2. Unity Launcher is correctly displaying an indicator of the current Other App. You move your mouse over to the launcher intent on clicking the firefox icon, but on your way focus is given to firefox because you cross the edge of the window. By the time you arrive at the launcher, it thinks firefox has focus, so clicking on it does NOTHING.

IMHO, clicking a unity launcher icon should not just FOCUS, but FOCUS and RAISE. That way, what Mark says, which I suspect the intended behaviour, will be true.

Since this report seems to be open for discussion, I'll add my two cents. I would also like to see this feature. I find the minimise button to be quite small and too close to the close button. It's easy to miss it and accidentally closing the application.

jr.swordfish (jr.swordfish) wrote :

I vote for this feature too. I have a FHD display and am tired of squinting my eyes to locate minimize every time I want to minimize.

JC (nothingness) wrote :

Since clicking the unity icon displays all open instances of a program, how about this:
Change clicking the unity icon to minimize all open windows of the program instead. Then make it so that middle clicking the icon brings up all open windows. If you want to minimize just one window out of three open windows, then middle click, bring up the window, and use the regular minimize click (-).
Make the middle-clicking the icon like gnome shell's program workspaces in other words.

JC (nothingness) wrote :

Or at least make it so that if there is only one window open, then clicking the icon will minimize.

Michael (michaeljt) wrote :

@JC: Or keep the traditional one click to show, two to hide, and make the expose view a double click. I'm always skeptical about overusing other mouse buttons (and Apple, who know a thing or two about usability, still haven't quite abandoned their single button mouse).

I think the ayatana mailing list is better suited for this kind of discussion. Just this:
@JC, @Michael
Both suggestions are too complicated, also middle click is already occupied for launching a new instance/window. What about minimizing the whole app (all its windows) from the context menu and a minimize button per window in the scale view (together with a dedicated close button, there should be a bug for that too)? The scale view could further be improved, a possible implementation here: https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/msg05651.html

One thing is certain, the old taskbar window minimizing behavior is not coming back unless the whole taskbar makes it back into Unity. An application dock simply doesn't work that way, like it or not. Though there are several standalone taskbars available you could use together with Unity (for example tint2, probably gnome-panel too if someone patched it).

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

Ed Lin wrote 1 hour ago: #71

"(...) An application dock simply doesn't work that way, like it or not. (...)"

Eh, they actually do, or at least offer that option. E.g. the fabulous Cairo-Dock.

For anyone who is interested: I've improve my script. Now it minimize all instances of the same app.
See: http://askubuntu.com/questions/36433/why-cant-i-use-the-unity-launcher-icon-to-minimize-applications-windows/39851#39851

> One thing is certain, the old taskbar window minimizing behavior is not
> coming back unless the whole taskbar makes it back into Unity. An
> application dock simply doesn't work that way, like it or not.

AWN, docky, cario-dock and OSX (afaik) all do this ??

The only dock i can think of that doesn't is unity

--
"Weekends don't count unless you spend them doing something completely
pointless. " - Calven

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

One click to launch, one click to show, one click to hide them (and in the
darkness bind them). Wheel scroll to switch between instances of the same
applications and middle click to launch another instance.

In other words, just copy AWN.

> One thing is certain, the old taskbar window minimizing behavior is not
> coming back unless the whole taskbar makes it back into Unity. An
> application dock simply doesn't work that way, like it or not.

Have you ever used a dock? Because pretty much all of them work this way.

2011/5/7 KillerKiwi <email address hidden>

> > One thing is certain, the old taskbar window minimizing behavior is not
> > coming back unless the whole taskbar makes it back into Unity. An
> > application dock simply doesn't work that way, like it or not.
>
>
> AWN, docky, cario-dock and OSX (afaik) all do this ??
>
> The only dock i can think of that doesn't is unity
>
> --
> "Weekends don't count unless you spend them doing something completely
> pointless. " - Calven
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize windows upon clicking application's launcher
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> New
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Natty (Alpha 3 + daily builds) is the possibility to
> click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize the app.,
> not only to launch/restore it. This is standard behaviour on other
> desktops (at least on KDE, XFCE & MS Windows - don't know for Mac),
> and I think this should be implemented as well on Natty/Unity.
>
> mlaverdiere's futher addition: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-
> design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> To unsubscribe from this bug, go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscribe
>

@Bazon, KillerKiwi, The Fiddler

Please join the mailing list if you want to discuss this further, I've just posted a mail on topic, not yet in the public archive ("[Ayatana] Unity with window-centric launcher").

A Dock CAN'T, by design, offer the kind of minimizing feature a taskbar has: Single click per window minimizing.
It could offer single click per application hiding, that's something to discuss, hence my suggestion to change the bug title back.
Or it could offer per window minimizing in a secondary menu (popup/context menu or the scale view), which would warrant opening a separate bug.

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

@Ed Lin:

1. Why not discuss it here? The bug has "opinion" status, meaning:
"Opinion says: there’s a difference of opinion around this bug and people are free to continue the discussion, but the project or package maintainers need to move to other work and are considering the issue closed."
http://blog.launchpad.net/bug-tracking/new-bugs-status-opinion

2. Sorry, saying "a Dock CAN'T" do that sounds somewhat ignorant to me:
(a) As said before, many Docks just have that function. Try Cairo-Dock e.g.
(b) And even if there was no Dock having that function, right at this page many useful suggestions were made how to do it.

@Bazon
1.) Unity is a special case as it has its dedicated "opinion" list, other packages have no better place than the bug tracker.

The problem with discussing it here *as well' is that it splits the discussion, I'd have to repost everything to both. I feel the email form is better suited for a lengthy discussion and we already have several threads on topic in the mailing list, certainly more relevant than the 77 bug comments that to a large part are "me too"s.

2.) I stand by what I said, I have tried the cairo-dock and read all comments here.
I hope these two emails suffice as an explanation: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=4RWe7juW

I do not get this. It sounds to me like some kind of Win/Mac clone
speech. You seriously want to say to community "a Dock CAN'T"... I
thought Linux was better than that, it was built to "CAN". Minimizing
application is logical, it is reasonable it has been done before. Just
give us somewhere option "dock will behave as expected" so I can
enable it and disable default "no can't do for no reason" behavior.

BTW: @JC, @Michael: behavior like that would not be intuitive in my
opinion, complicated and inconsistent.

PS: Unity is inconsistent anyways. There is many things. For example,
how come if I go to application's menu (ex: Firefox -> View ->
Toolbar) it will show submenu by itself without clicking, but
subsequent click will hide that submenu? (I get so mad on slowed-down
submenu when I by mistake click on it, thereby hiding it). And each
click will either reveal or hide submenu. So that is OK? I do not
think that user cares about names of different parts of desktop. I
thought it should be simple clean, intuitive, expected, obvious and
CONSISTENT.

@Rasto
I think you are misunderstanding me. All I was saying is that the launcher is different and can't replicate the functionality of a taskbar 100%. Single-click top-hierarchy per-window minimizing simply is impossible to do in a dock. If you add that feature the dock automatically becomes a taskbar and I don't think the taskbar is coming back. The launcher "could" do a lot of things, even improve on the old taskbar. I'm fairly sure a minimizing feature will make it into the next version in one way or another, comment #58 maybe.

On your second point: sounds like a bug, not intended behavior. Consistency is an explicit goal of Unity.

Btw, you make it sound like I was from Canonical. I'm not, I'm just a user like you, part of the "community". What I'm writing here is my personal opinion.

Sorry for the confusion but I feel it's important to make these seemingly nitpicking distinctions to determine the best solution.

Rasto (rasto-klc) wrote :

@Ed Lin
I got carried away for no reason, sorry for that. But I still think it is very important and intuitive to hide/minimize application on next click, it is incomplete without it. All the reasons have been said.

@Ed Lin
You sure come across as a dictator from Canonical to me (in fact to be honest I've seen better dealings from Canonical at times).

What gives you the impression that keeping the current behaviour is not possible for a dock? Also, why call it a dock, if it's not supposed to be one? Also, why are we copying Mac verbatim in the behaviour of the "Launcher". Users who have already been using Ubuntu/Linux for a long time (and yes, Windows), will be accustomed to minimizing via a simple click on the icon, and it will come as a surprise when they are forced to adapt to so many changes at once. First, we move window controls to the left, arranging them like Mac (for no reason) and claim it's for "windicators", which never came into existence. Then, we come up with a global menu bar, for no reason, and refuse to listen to users who argue that there could be a better solution. Oh, and indicator applets, no autohide for you. Again, something users have been arguing we should have had for a while. And then there is the problem of this launcher's behaviour. We keep saying, common sense dictates that it should behave in at least a more familiar way so as to avoid **further** confusion. Alas - it MUST change to be like Mac as well...

Is my point becoming clear as yet? Or do I need to go on?

@Ed Lin btw not all of the above is directed toward you, just the the first 3 questions.

@Roland
I thought I had explained it sufficiently. I do not work for Canonical. I only represent myself and my opinions here. I too am not happy with the global menu for example or the general Mac copying that has been going on in the Unity design team (which I'm not part of). I merely pointed out that a launcher works differently. I personally prefer the old taskbar but I don't see that coming back. The very difference between a launcher and a taskbar is that one has per application buttons the other per window buttons. Hence a launcher can't hide a single window or focus a single window with one single click. It is impossible and that's a fact not an opinion. You can still implement ways of enabling the functionality you want but it will work slightly differently. I and others suggested some ways to improve the launcher for window-centric user scenarios in the ayatana mailing list, the Windows 7 taksbar is another you might be familiar with. I urged everyone to read the relevant threads there (they are all online now at https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/)

That having said you can still use gnome-panel in Unity and when I use Unity I run tint2 and set the launcher to always hide. If you read the mails I posted to the list you'll find that I'm an expressed critic of Unity, not just in the little details but in terms of the general direction it has been going. You'll find that I'm actually on your side, against any (perceived) dictatorship...

Back to the concrete topic at hand:
This bug is about hiding applications, i.e. all windows of one application. If you want per window hiding open a new bug for that, if you want an optional (?) taskbar make a wishlist bug for that. I'll change the description now as I've heard no disagreeing feedback in this regard since I posted #49 several weeks ago.

summary: - Minimize windows upon clicking application's launcher
+ Minimize Applications upon clicking on Launcher Icons
description: updated

Applications can not be minimized. Windows can. Changing the bug title.

summary: - Minimize Applications upon clicking on Launcher Icons
+ Minimize windows upon clicking on Launcher Icons
description: updated

Marco Biscaro:
Maybe "minimize" was a poor choice, a better term to properly distinguish the two approaches is "hide".

The launcher is for launching applications, it represents application, it indicates whether applications are running or not, you can "quit" applications from it's context menu. You cannot close particular windows from the launcher nor select individual windows from the launcher. You can only do that from the scale view which is a separate interface.

Why should the launcher suddenly hide "windows"? It would be completely inconsistent, illogical and simple "wrong". Mind you in any case this is more a question of terminology than an actual difference in behavior because application equals one or more windows, the difference however is that it's "all windows" or none, never individual windows.

summary: - Minimize windows upon clicking on Launcher Icons
+ Hide Applications upon clicking on Launcher Icons

@Marco Biscaro: Thanks for trying to keep this bug on track and maintaining focus on the core issue being discussed.

@Ed Lin: Please stop altering the bug description to fit your own views. This is distracting and attempts to derail the fundamental request of this bug. Please file another bug if this discussion is not in line with your views. Also, have you ever used another launcher before? All popular launchers (cairo dock, avant, dock, and even rocketDock for Windows) behave in a manner which is being requested here (minimize windows when clicking app launcher icon).

This is getting silly now. I was changing it BACK btw, to the original bug description.

@tekstr1der:
This is not about my views, it's about logically analyzing a problem, properly labeling it in correct terms and finally coming up with good ways to solve it.

First let me answer your question. Yes. And exactly this behavior is what I have in mind with "hiding applications" (app=all its windows+launcher icon indicating its state). Could be a huge misunderstanding maybe?

Let me put it yet another way:
This bug is not about hiding *individual* "windows" but about hiding all windows of an "application". My terminology is correct because the launcher and all mentioned docks are application-centric. In terms of how it actually works "all windows" would be correct too. This may look like nitpicking to you but the problem is that this bug isn't (as in "it can't") solving another related problem: per window (=window-centric) window hiding or minimizing (minimizing isn't very accurate for neither apps nor windows in the current implementation of the launcher). By not using the proper terms and/or clearly defining the problem there is the risk these two separate issues become mixed up and finally that inconsistent terminologies and concepts end up in the user visible interface.

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

The visual representation of an application is its window. If you want to show an application to the user, show the user the applications window(s). If you want to hide the application, hide.... ...guess what? ;-)

(its window of course.)

PS:
Since when is this bugs status "won't fix" again? OK, I got it, this is not democratic...

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

...ooops, sorry, "opinion" was only in Ayanta design, where it is "new" now... ...thumbs up!

@Bazon
We could discuss whether we should label any context menu entry of the dock "hide (application)" or "hide all windows". I'm open to such discussion. However I'm against it for several reasons:

Application in this context are an abstraction, an abstraction which is already exposed via the Quit entry in the dock. It doesn't say "close all windows" which could be something different: On OS X for example you can have applications running without any associated windows, this makes sense as a replacement to the "close to tray" found in window-centric environments (together with overlay progress bars and counters on launcher icons). In Unity application are visually represented by 3 different interface elements: windows, launcher icon and application menu (global menu). Closing or hiding all windows (of an application) doesn't necessarily switch the "focused" menu to a different *application*, again, it doesn't in OS X. If it says "hide application" it's consistent and clear and for everyone, people coming from OS X and from other platforms.

Finally a simple "hide all windows" entry is ambiguous - does it mean ALL all windows or just all windows of a single application? For new users/user coming from Windows (where they have exactly such context menu in the taskbar that hides all windows and shows the desktop) this at least could cause some initial confusion which could be easily avoided and a "Close all Home Folder windows" is clunky to say the least.

>
> Why should the launcher suddenly hide "windows"?

Again: because applications can not be hidden.

> It would be completely
> inconsistent, illogical and simple "wrong".

I don't think so: the launcher is used to create a new *window* for an
application or to bring the *window* of that application up. As far I know,
applications that does not have a window can not be pinned (and aren't even
shown) in launcher.

> Mind you in any case this is
> more a question of terminology than an actual difference in behavior
> because application equals one or more windows, the difference however
> is that it's "all windows" or none, never individual windows.
>
If we consider "application" as "all windows of given application", yes, I
agree. Anyway, I don't think the title is completly clear.

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

2011/5/16 Marco Biscaro <email address hidden>

> >
> > Why should the launcher suddenly hide "windows"?
>
> Again: because applications can not be hidden.
>

Exactly.

> It would be completely
> > inconsistent, illogical and simple "wrong".
>
> I don't think so: the launcher is used to create a new *window* for an
> application or to bring the *window* of that application up. As far I know,
> applications that does not have a window can not be pinned (and aren't even
> shown) in launcher.
>

Not only that, but the launcher can be used to *quit* an application. Isn't
that "completely inconsistent, illogical and simply *wrong*"?

This is getting ridiculous.

This is ridiculous that the title is being changed so often, no-one else for the last 2months was misled by the title. Most users will use the term 'minimize' so that is what should be in the title. This AU question is a prime example: http://askubuntu.com/questions/36433/why-cant-i-use-the-unity-launcher-icon-to-minimize-applications-windows

summary: - Hide Applications upon clicking on Launcher Icons
+ Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon

> > It would be completely
> > > inconsistent, illogical and simple "wrong".
> >
> > I don't think so: the launcher is used to create a new *window* for an
> > application or to bring the *window* of that application up. As far I
> know,
> > applications that does not have a window can not be pinned (and aren't
> even
> > shown) in launcher.
> >
>
> Not only that, but the launcher can be used to *quit* an application. Isn't
> that "completely inconsistent, illogical and simply *wrong*"?
>
No. The launcher is used to *close all windows* of the application. Example:
open Empathy and right click it's icon and choose "Quit". All windows of
Empathy are closed, but *the application* still running. If you click the
messaging menu, you'll see it there.

See also http://design.canonical.com/2011/03/quit/

> This is getting ridiculous.
>
Well, I agree. The question here is not about terminology, but it's about
the new functionality of minimizing all windows of one application when the
launcher icon is clicked.

Marco Biscaro wrote:
>> Why should the launcher suddenly hide "windows"?
>
> Again: because applications can not be hidden.

Citation needed. Or please explain yourself. I've explained and justified my statements, I've heard no counterarguments other than "No, I disagree".
(There is no "/the/ *window*"; app != windows because: global menu and icon with optional overlays; "can not be pinned": you are missing a "yet"; apps can be hidden, just not in traditional Linux DEs because they all were window-centric till Unity)

The Fiddler wrote:
>> I don't think so: the launcher is used to create a new *window* for an
>> application or to bring the *window* of that application up. As far I know,
>> applications that does not have a window can not be pinned (and aren't even
>> shown) in launcher.
>>
>
> Not only that, but the launcher can be used to *quit* an application. Isn't
> that "completely inconsistent, illogical and simply *wrong*"?
>
> This is getting ridiculous.

"Exactly". This *is* ridiculous. Please read up on the application and window-centric interface paradigms. I've posted about this on the mailing list several times and you can find other resources if you don't like listening to me.

@Cas
Do you deliberately chose to ignore my reasoned postings? I just wrote about how "Minimize" is the wrong term in the launcher, it's to be deprecated, a leftover from the gnome-panel. I elaborated on that in the mailing list.
So because "users will use the term" start menu for the dash we should change all our bugs to reflect that?

I agree on not changing the title further because everything that had to be said on this has been said and I hope whoever goes forward and implements this feature will read all comments. I'd still had preferred to call it "all application's windows" because:

I don't think no one is going to be mislead by the previous titles. Most people complaining about this feature will not be content if it is implemented as in post #58. Many want the old task bar like minimizing back and this bug IS NOT about this issue. I've just opened a new bug for just this problem (among others):
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/783498

2011/5/16 Ed Lin <email address hidden>

> The Fiddler wrote:
> >> I don't think so: the launcher is used to create a new *window* for an
> >> application or to bring the *window* of that application up. As far I
> know,
> >> applications that does not have a window can not be pinned (and aren't
> even
> >> shown) in launcher.
> >>
> >
> > Not only that, but the launcher can be used to *quit* an application.
> Isn't
> > that "completely inconsistent, illogical and simply *wrong*"?
> >
> > This is getting ridiculous.
>
> "Exactly". This *is* ridiculous. Please read up on the application and
> window-centric interface paradigms. I've posted about this on the
> mailing list several times and you can find other resources if you don't
> like listening to me.
>

The requested functionality does not break the application-centric paradigm.
Please try to pay a little more attention to what is being suggested here
and in the ayatana mailing list.

Let me reiterate: people wish to click on the launcher icon to hide the
application, i.e. *all* windows belonging to that application. This is 100%
equivalent to the "Quit" button we have now.

I hope this is clear to you. If you have a counter-argument please write it.

As for terminology: it doesn't matter. Call it minimize or hide, it.
doesn't. matter.

Personally, I would really appreciate it if you paid a little more attention
to what they wrote, without preconceived ideas about what you think they
wrote.

I don't think no one is going to be mislead by the previous titles. Most
> people complaining about this feature will not be content if it is
> implemented as in post #58. Many want the old task bar like minimizing back
> and this bug IS NOT about this issue. I've just opened a new bug for just
> this problem (among others):
>

Good, because gnome-panel-like minimization is not what people are
requesting here. That's a totally different issue.

@The Fiddler
FYI you are misunderstanding me. It never was about this functionality breaking app-centric paradigms. It really only has been about definitions, differentiations and terminology, both in the bug discussion and in eventually user facing dialogs and options.

I find it pretty ironic to hear that sort of wording directed against me but I hope we can continue discussing what actually matters and leave the non-essential parts of the discussion behind. I admit I should have opened that other bug sooner instead of cluttering this bug with a lot of back and forth arguing which essentially wasn't nearly important enough to get agitated about. What you won't hear from me is that I've not been paying attention, that I'm misunderstanding the issues or that my terms were incorrect.

Back to the real topic:
"all windows belonging to an application" is the same as "the application" from a Linux user's perspective. Both would work for them. That doesn't mean the chosen terminology doesn't matter to the user at all. I already delivered the counterargument (in fact "argument" because there -still- is nothing to counter) but I'll repeat it in case it got lost somehow:
"All windows of an application" is not the same for:
- OS X users (the only app-centric desktop interface that already had "users" to speak of)
- people confused by "all windows of an application" vs. "all windows on the desktop"
- Interface designers using accurate terminology (those aren't "users" but bug reports aren't really intended for users either)

As for minimize vs hide:
One minimizes a window *to* a taskbar button (usually depicted graphically by a "_" or "v" like sign), while the other "hides" a window completely, it's gone from the desktop. It's not just a question of terminology (which *is* important when we are discussing interface design). The difference has important consequences for the user. Hidden windows behave very differently in a mental model, a user has to be somehow reminded that they are still open, he needs to know beforehand how to get the window "back" (animations can only be hints that which don't really change that). Minimized windows are simple, on a busy desktop they behave just like open windows behind other windows.

By using the same terms in user facing elements for very different things it's not only inaccurate to looking dilettantish, we pretend nothing has changed, one could even say betray users or at least break user expectations. This obviously would be bad design.

2011/5/17 Ed Lin <email address hidden>

> Back to the real topic:
>

Good.

> "all windows belonging to an application" is the same as "the application"
> from a Linux user's perspective. Both would work for them. That doesn't mean
> the chosen terminology doesn't matter to the user at all. I already
> delivered the counterargument (in fact "argument" because there -still- is
> nothing to counter) but I'll repeat it in case it got lost somehow:
> "All windows of an application" is not the same for:
> - OS X users (the only app-centric desktop interface that already had
> "users" to speak of)
> - people confused by "all windows of an application" vs. "all windows on
> the desktop"
> - Interface designers using accurate terminology (those aren't "users" but
> bug reports aren't really intended for users either)
>

This bug report explicitly refers to "Minimize Application's Windows upon
clicking it's Launcher Icon ". Not "minimize application" but "minimize
application windows".

The fact that applications without visible windows exist is *completely
irrelevant* to this bug report and resulting discussion.

> As for minimize vs hide:
> One minimizes a window *to* a taskbar button (usually depicted graphically
> by a "_" or "v" like sign), while the other "hides" a window completely,
> it's gone from the desktop. It's not just a question of terminology (which
> *is* important when we are discussing interface design). The difference has
> important consequences for the user. Hidden windows behave very differently
> in a mental model, a user has to be somehow reminded that they are still
> open, he needs to know beforehand how to get the window "back" (animations
> can only be hints that which don't really change that). Minimized windows
> are simple, on a busy desktop they behave just like open windows behind
> other windows.
>

Great. This bug report is about *minimizing* windows, so please open a
different one for hide vs minimization and/or terminology matters. The rest
is line noise that has little to do with the topic at hand.

> This bug report explicitly refers to "Minimize Application's Windows upon
> clicking it's Launcher Icon ". Not "minimize application" but "minimize
> application windows".

Yes, because someone changed it. You remember the original title chosen by the bug reporter was "Unity launcher buttons should allow to minimize apps, not just launch/restore"? That's not helping your arguments and neither is stating your opinions as facts.

I should open a bug about "why terminology matters on launchpad"? Really I thought we could put that behind us and then I get a flamebait like that.

Anyway, in case anyone is wondering why I'm approaching this whole thing somewhat tediously, I'm trying to instill a certain mindset into the Unity design discussion, to treat UX more like science than usual code patching. It's my opinion that we should not put up with hacks, workarounds, inconsistencies and half baked so called solutions from the get-go when it comes to the user experience. By not using exact definitions when even attempting to start a discussion I can't see how such results can be avoided. The current state of Unity isn't exactly helping in dispelling my concerns.

2011/5/17 Ed Lin <email address hidden>

> > This bug report explicitly refers to "Minimize Application's Windows upon
> > clicking it's Launcher Icon ". Not "minimize application" but "minimize
> > application windows".
>
> Yes, because someone changed it. You remember the original title chosen
> by the bug reporter was "Unity launcher buttons should allow to minimize
> apps, not just launch/restore"? That's not helping your arguments and
> neither is stating your opinions as facts.
>

You are quite mistaken. The first post of this bug report reads:

"the possibility to click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to
minimize all windows of that application"

The current title reflects the contents of the bug report exactly.

If you are going to be pedantic you must be extra attentive to what it being
written, otherwise you *will* instill bikeshed arguments and flamebaits - if
only because your own arguments read that way.

Just to add to the volume of opinion, if not the strength of the argument - I consistently try to click on the icon to minimise it. Working with a work desktop with Windows 7 on it and a work laptop with Gnome 'classic' on it and Unity at home, I find it hard to switch behaviours. And while it may be designed like this it 'feels' like a missing feature. I guess I wouldnt mind if it did something else, but at the moment I cant even launch another copy of the program.

At the very least give us the option to tweak the behaviour.

I can't change the bug status in unity, but I'm now working on this bug. I'm implementing the solution proposed in comment #58.

tekstr1der (tekstr1der) wrote :

@Marco: If you can successfully implement the exact behaviors detailed in your solution from comment #58 I will be one _very_ happy camper!

Thanks for picking this up!

Please, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNVi9cRwhyU

You'll upload the code to a branch today for futher testing, and possible bugs fix.

If no one find problems, I'll propose the merge with trunk. :)

*I'll* upload the code to a branch today.....

Sorry for spamming...

Bazon (bazonbloch) wrote :

@Marco Biscaro:
Great! That is the way it should look! It's also very intuitive: You click on the launcher, the window minimizes right there. That just looks right. Good work! :-)

You, sir, are a hero!

Intuitive, great-looking *and* toggleable. It's perfect :)

2011/5/18 Bazon <email address hidden>

> @Marco Biscaro:
> Great! That is the way it should look! It's also very intuitive: You click
> on the launcher, the window minimizes right there. That just looks right.
> Good work! :-)
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> New
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Natty (Alpha 3 + daily builds) is the possibility to
> click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of
> that application, not only to launch/restore it.
> mlaverdiere's futher addition:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> To unsubscribe from this bug, go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscribe
>

@Marco Biscaro: -
The commit seems to work well in both modes. Looking mainly at the default mode it does add some useful left click action(s)
The only thing that comes up is sometimes, when there are a # of same app windows open on various viewports, a previously minimised window will be un-minimized, other times it will not and a opened same type win. will be brought into focus
There are quite a number of possible combos and scenarios, some not that common to occur
Overall, while of little importance, I like the change, hope it gets merged

Doug McMahon (mc3man) wrote :

Note - by importance I mean what or any other single user 'likes'

John Lea (johnlea) on 2011-06-20
Changed in ayatana-design:
status: New → Won't Fix
importance: Low → Undecided

Why was this set to Won't Fix?

It is quite odd if it is not implemented. Every window manager does it.
Windows XP, Docky under Ubuntu, AWN, even pressing twice on the taskbar
under traditional Gnome restores and minimizes the window. I urge to
reconsider this trivial but essential piece of functionality.

- Jorgen

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:09:36 -0000, John Lea wrote:
> ** Changed in: ayatana-design
> Status: New => Won't Fix
>
> ** Changed in: ayatana-design
> Importance: Low => Undecided

John Lea (johnlea) wrote :

See Mark's comment #26. I am not sure why this bug was reverted by 'Extender' but returning to correct status.

"Adding minimise will add complications..."

I really disagree. This function will only be available when explicit set in ccsm. People that can install ccsm and tweak unity will not experience difficulties in understand the "show -> spread -> minimize" cicle. And there is almost 100 people demonstrating interest in this feature here in this bug report and duplicates.

"when would it show the window? When would it show a spread of that apps windows? When would it minimise."

Well, in comment #58 there is a proposed solution. Design team only needs to approve that (or to make the desired changes) and everything will be well defined.

"Adding minimise will add complications..."

Did I miss the part where you now have to be a complete idiot to be able to use ubuntu?

I'm pretty sure someone has already written a patch, either here or in the
related ayatana discussion. In this case, it's just a matter of reviewing
and approving the patch.

It would be a shame to ignore one of the most subscribed-to bugs for Natty.

2011/6/20 Dimitris Papageorgiou <email address hidden>

> "Adding minimise will add complications..."
>
> Did I miss the part where you now have to be a complete idiot to be able
> to use ubuntu?
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Natty (Alpha 3 + daily builds) is the possibility to
> click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of
> that application, not only to launch/restore it.
> mlaverdiere's futher addition:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions
>

the staus before was "opinion", it was set by Mark Shuttleworth in #19::

Mark Shuttleworth wrote on 2011-04-21: Re: [Bug 733349] Re: Add 'minimize all windows' option to the quicklist of running applications #19
"
(...)
 status opinion

Mark
Changed in ayatana-design:
status: Won't Fix → Opinion "

Please set it at least back to that and include the (already written!) patch from Marco Biscaro as an option!

Marek Stasiak (marecki) wrote :

"It would be a shame to ignore one of the most subscribed-to bugs for Natty."

Indeed.

This is one of the last things that makes Unity uncomfortable.
Developers says that adding this functionality will bring some complications? I'm sure that present situation is more complicated!

Come on, the patch is ready (by courtesy of Marco Biscaro), why don't you want to make Ubuntu users happy?

qmax (qwiglydee) wrote :

Are there any reasons to remove the feature, beside Shuttleworth's vision of complicatness?
Here in comments i found only pros. Is there discussion elsewhere?

Is there binary package or ppa available with Marco patch applied?

There is no PPA yet.

Em 20/06/2011 15:37, "qmax" <email address hidden>escreveu:

Are there any reasons to remove the feature, beside Shuttleworth's vision of
complicatness?
Here in comments i found only pros. Is there discussion elsewhere?

Is there binary package or ppa available with Marco patch applied?

--
You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to unity.
https://bugs.launchpad....

> Here in comments i found only pros. Is there discussion elsewhere?

I'm wondering if it's possible to create a poll in launchpad to measure how much people want this feature back.

qmax (qwiglydee) wrote :

> I'm wondering if it's possible to create a poll in launchpad to measure how much people want this feature back.
There's no democracy here in developement. And there're reasons for that.
It's developers headache to implement and support a feature. Users do not pay for that. Don't know if Canonical does.
The users poll is only "affects me too" click.
Developers should decide.

There're 26 committers of unity, and Shuttleworth is not one of them.

Ngassam Nkwenga (cyrildz) wrote :

I'm affected by the default behavior too.

I will go with this setting :

If the icon has just one app launched :
  1- a clic on the icon should :
        - Minimize the app if this app has the focus.
        - re-show the app if it doesn't have focus or is minimize.

If the icon has just more than one app launched (need to add this option on compiz expo Mode:
       - a clic on the icon should "expose" all the app for this icon and from the exposed mode we should have this functionality :
             # the possiblity to close the app from this mode (expose)
             # a clic on an instance should reveal or minimize that instance.

John Lea (johnlea) wrote :

This change will not be made directly in Unity, so marked as won't fix. However this should not prevent Marco's patch being packaged and made available for download by those desire this functionality.

SRoesgen (s-roesgen) wrote :

First of all: thanks to you Marco for fixing this!

@John Lea and the Canonical team
What I do not understand is the politics behind some of the decisions here:
1) there is a huge number of users who want a change to the current state of things and gladly somebody had the abilities to implement these changes into code

2) The code is seemingly good enough that it can be packaged and made available for download

3) Considering the representative number of voters I would assume that there are a lot of people who would want to use these changes of the behaviour of the launcher's icons.

4) The designers and developers are always talking about making the unity desktop and Ubuntu a good and comfortable experience.

5) What exactly is comfortable in having to download an extra package (i.e. patch) to get some more functionality. If this will be done to every simple wish of the users you will have to call Ubuntu no "a system for human beings" but instead "a system for patchworks". Where is the problem of making this at least a configuration option? Like the option which makes you decide when the launcher disappears and when not?

6) If there are so many users voting for a change it is a blatantly impudent answer to make this a downloadable patch. Make this at least an option in Ubuntu. Some kind of checkbox or drop down menu option. A user invested some of his private time to get this fixed. He tried to help Ubuntu via this contribution. It is like hitting him, and everybody who voted for this bug to be fixed, in the face. Simply packaging the code and making it available for download is something for which Canonical's support is not needed; to make a thing downloadable, that is something which a user can make himself.
People here voted for this bug because they saw the need for this to be implemented as this is an expected behaviour of the launcher which is not met. To click on an icon an nothing happen that is behaviour which is really unexpected. It makes the system appear as if there were something to working correctly. It was discussed above: you click on the launcher icon of an application which is already focused and nothing will happen. Well, wonderful!
Among the bugs I have seen, this is the third bug now, for which many people voted and which is set to "Won't Fix" after a very long discussion. I am considering the possibility to post a bug request on launchpad: I want to get rid of the "this bug affects me" option, because it seems that voting on this option does not have any sense. Bugs get fixed and implemented when one or two persons vote for them, other bugs are not implemented at all, even if 100 people vote for them. You do not want anybody to vote: you ignore the votes. So please remove the option. It is better that way. You only disappoint the users who think that they can change something by voting for bugs to be fixed or features to be implemented.

Michael (michaeljt) wrote :

SRoesgen: I would personally like to see this too, but I do think we have to see the other side of the argument too. This is a feature request, not a bug (at least for my definition of a bug, others may disagree), and the "this affects me too" is not really a way of voting for new features but a way of judging the impact of a bug. So all it says is that at least ninety users of Ubuntu would like this changed. Ubuntu has a lot of users, and while it is well possible that a lot of them would also like this change we can't just conclude that without more evidence. The fact that we would like it may well make us more inclined to think so.

And you also have to realise that accepting a patch is more responsibility than just changing some code and forgetting about it. Patches, even small ones (and this one adds to user-visible configuration interfaces, so it can't be treated as trivial) increase code size and maintenance work. In the end, the person writing the code (or their employer) is the one who gets to decide what it will look like, which is (in my opinion) fair as they have to shoulder the burden.

SRoesgen (s-roesgen) wrote :
Download full text (3.4 KiB)

@All
The problem I have with this whole decision is that a real question was raised in the whole discussion and then it was ignored:

1) When the window of a program/application is already focused and you click the corresponding launcher icon (of that program) you expect usually that something happens

2) The current behaviour is: nothing happens

3) "nothing" is really not very much (forgive me the irony)

4) The patch submitted by Marc is really interesting because it sees to the fact that there should never be a button (or menu option, or link, or check-box...) which does not show any reaction when a user clicks on it

5) If the path is not accepted this bug report still cannot/must not be set to won't fix. The reason for this is simple: you still have a user who expects a reaction when he clicks on the icon. If there is a situation where this expectation if not fulfilled (ergo "nothing" happens) then there is still an error present.

6) This is perhaps not the original bug report. But still the question was raised during the discussion of this report.

7) I would at least expect another proposal.
For instance, if the window is already focused and somebody clicks still on the icon you can have an effect that makes the window glow for a second so that one sees that the launcher icon indeed does not serve in hiding/minimizing the windows but instead focuses them. In case of an environment where the whole desktop is cluttered by different small windows this would even help in showing which window is active in the moment (though this would be a side effect, for I usually expect a user to know which window he/she is currently using).

@Michael
Concerning the idea that somebody has to maintain a patch:
I know that. There are two possibilites
1) Canonical closes launchpad for the public and makes it a system where people can only post the bugs they found. And in the best case even that should not be possible and instead all bug requests should be filed via apport. So they won't get any patches by users which they would have to maintain. And on the other hand no user will be disappointed that he/she invested much time in fixing a bug and still the work he/she put in it won't be appreciated.
(Certainly the possibility to reject a patch because of lacking quality should be considered. This would indeed be a reason to reject a patch.)
The solution to send the bug reports via apport (and only apport) is ideal because thus a users will not have the possibility to request changes which belong to a wishlist and therefore Canonical is spared from any discussion about their design decisions. Normal users which have a own opinion will still rage and rave about some of these design decisions because one sometimes gets the idea that decisions were made without much thinking and discussion, but as there are many good design decisions made as well, this should not be a problem because many people will be content with what they get.

2) You (meaning Canonical) accept the fact that people post requests in which they demand changes to the system. But Canonical should then make clear that they do not want any extra work from non-canonical members because t...

Read more...

Download full text (3.4 KiB)

>
> 2) You (meaning Canonical) accept the fact that people post requests in
> which they demand changes to the system. But Canonical should then make
> clear that they do not want any extra work from non-canonical members
> because they are not willing to maintain patches from users. So do not
> post any messages on planet.ubuntu or anywhere to get people to fix
> bugs, as I deem this  insolent. Canonical cannot request users to work
> for free on those bugs  they deem worthy to be worked on but completely
> ignore those bugs in which they are not interested.

Bugfixing is not the same as adding functionality or changing the
direction of the design of the project. The design team and the
ayatana community have worked hard to create a design vision for
Unity, and it is clear that we want something that is consistent with
the goals of Canonical Design and Ayatana. Thus, those who create the
product have a voice in the direction it goes in. This is no different
to the way it works in KDE, or GNOME or any other distribution with
module proposals and the like.

On the other hand, we actively encourage developers to submit patches
and create branches which enhance the product based on the overall
vision of the product or fix things which do not work in the way that
they are supposed to work in the product. That kind of participation
is beneficial for everybody, because it means that everyone is working
on a project with a similar vision rather than a fragmented vision.

I wouldn't frame this as "free work", that's missing the entire point
of the community around the Unity (and compiz) projects. I've met our
contributors personally and I can see that they share the exact same
vision as everybody else on the Desktop Experience team and the Design
Team. There are going to be points of contention where the vision
diverges in small places. However, I can say that from my many years
of working "for free" in open source communities and projects, it is
as much as being valued as a member of the team as it is achieving a
vision that you want too. People contribute because they are
passionate about the project, just as Canonical employees choose to
work for Canonical because they are passionate about making Ubuntu
win.

> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Unity
> Bugs, which is subscribed to unity in Ubuntu.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
>  Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
>  Won't Fix
> Status in Unity:
>  Won't Fix
> Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu:
>  Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
>  What I do miss in Natty (Alpha 3 + daily builds) is the possibility to click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of that application, not only to launch/restore it.
>  mlaverdiere's futher addition: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
>  My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
>  this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
>  1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
>  *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
>  *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has no...

Read more...

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

2011/6/23 Sam Spilsbury <email address hidden>

> >
> > 2) You (meaning Canonical) accept the fact that people post requests in
> > which they demand changes to the system. But Canonical should then make
> > clear that they do not want any extra work from non-canonical members
> > because they are not willing to maintain patches from users. So do not
> > post any messages on planet.ubuntu or anywhere to get people to fix
> > bugs, as I deem this insolent. Canonical cannot request users to work
> > for free on those bugs they deem worthy to be worked on but completely
> > ignore those bugs in which they are not interested.
>
> Bugfixing is not the same as adding functionality or changing the
> direction of the design of the project. The design team and the
> ayatana community have worked hard to create a design vision for
> Unity, and it is clear that we want something that is consistent with
> the goals of Canonical Design and Ayatana. Thus, those who create the
> product have a voice in the direction it goes in. This is no different
> to the way it works in KDE, or GNOME or any other distribution with
> module proposals and the like.
>

Indeed. But as you can see from the community response to this design
choice, there *is* an issue here and this issue might merit reconsideration
in the design. SRoesgen summed things up succinctly: when you click on an
icon, you expect something to happen. When nothing happens, the icon feels
broken.

*What* should happen is something that the design team can and should
consider. A few people have suggested minimization - rejected - but there
are other, potentially even better, possibilities.

Why am I being so persistent here? Because several users I support have
commented on this behavior spontaneously - and I had nothing better to offer
other than "it's by design" (reply: "what?") and that Unity is still under
heavy development (reply: "ah, so they'll fix it").

Anecdotal evidence but easily reproducible. Just place someone in front an
Ubuntu laptop, let him go about his daily tasks (browsing, messaging, maybe
edit a document) and have him comment on his actions and feelings. It won't
take long, especially if he uses a low-resolution monitor (e.g. 1366x768)
which requires frequent window management.

Jorgen Bodde (jorgb) wrote :
Download full text (3.3 KiB)

Just make it as Docky. On a click when;

1) If all windows are visible, all windows should minimize.
2) If one of the windows of the same group is minimized, but others are
visbible it should restore all windows
3) If all windows are minimized, **all** of them restore old position

I see no ambiguity in this, it is behaviour I learned to like for as
long as I used Docky, it is intuitive and I see no problems with this flow.

Don't make it more complicated then it is, but offering no minimize but
only restore is silly. It requires me to do a whole lot more mousework
if I quickly want to toggle a browser window to the front and back when
for example I read API docs when I am developing in Eclipse.

I am not using Unity right now, for that specific reason, it drives me
crazy that it seems to be 'off' behaviour wise. Every task mamager works
like that and worked like that for ages. Don't break this expected
behaviour, so yes in my eyes it is a bug.

- Jorgen

On 06/23/2011 02:50 PM, The Fiddler wrote:
> 2011/6/23 Sam Spilsbury<email address hidden>
>
>>>
>>> 2) You (meaning Canonical) accept the fact that people post requests in
>>> which they demand changes to the system. But Canonical should then make
>>> clear that they do not want any extra work from non-canonical members
>>> because they are not willing to maintain patches from users. So do not
>>> post any messages on planet.ubuntu or anywhere to get people to fix
>>> bugs, as I deem this insolent. Canonical cannot request users to work
>>> for free on those bugs they deem worthy to be worked on but completely
>>> ignore those bugs in which they are not interested.
>>
>> Bugfixing is not the same as adding functionality or changing the
>> direction of the design of the project. The design team and the
>> ayatana community have worked hard to create a design vision for
>> Unity, and it is clear that we want something that is consistent with
>> the goals of Canonical Design and Ayatana. Thus, those who create the
>> product have a voice in the direction it goes in. This is no different
>> to the way it works in KDE, or GNOME or any other distribution with
>> module proposals and the like.
>>
>
> Indeed. But as you can see from the community response to this design
> choice, there *is* an issue here and this issue might merit reconsideration
> in the design. SRoesgen summed things up succinctly: when you click on an
> icon, you expect something to happen. When nothing happens, the icon feels
> broken.
>
> *What* should happen is something that the design team can and should
> consider. A few people have suggested minimization - rejected - but there
> are other, potentially even better, possibilities.
>
> Why am I being so persistent here? Because several users I support have
> commented on this behavior spontaneously - and I had nothing better to offer
> other than "it's by design" (reply: "what?") and that Unity is still under
> heavy development (reply: "ah, so they'll fix it").
>
> Anecdotal evidence but easily reproducible. Just place someone in front an
> Ubuntu laptop, let him go about his daily tasks (browsing, messaging, maybe
> edit a document) and have him comment on his ac...

Read more...

The user-community is bagging for more ways to configure Unity. This one would have been a fine and desired option.
But OK, I don't mind, I'm not using Unity anymore.

SRoesgen (s-roesgen) wrote :
Download full text (3.2 KiB)

@The Fiddler
Thank you.

@All
I personally would like to discuss the whole topic of design decisions. I know that to some I am becoming a nuisance because this is not the first bug where I start complaining about the term "design decision" but, to me, it seems to be the source of many disputes.
Why shouldn't users be able to configure some options if they do not like them? It is a design decision is not the ultimative answer to all questions concerning changes to the behaviour of the system. And it must not be the only answer.

I can understand Jorgen Bodde, when he states that he does not use unity because he does not like a specific behaviour of the launcher.
I myself use unity, despite the fact that I want the launcher at the bottom and not at the left side, and despite the fact that I want windows to minimize when I click a launcher icon. Still I hate these things I want to reconfigure.
I stick with Ubuntu at the moment because I really hope that we will see a change in the system. I hope we will see more options to configure the system. If it won't be possible to configure more options of the system, I will search for another distribution. Perhaps in a year or so. I really want to use Ubuntu and I want to use Unity. But I will not pay any price.

I hate it if an operating system dictates me my workflow. An operating system must be configurable, so that I can modify the system to meet my needs. I am the user, I am the customer, I am the client and thus I am the one to whom the system has to bow. At the moment it is the opposite: the system controls my behaviour and my workflow. This is wrong.

If it is a design decision to have a launcher at the left and an icon to do nothing if it is clicked under certain circumstances then this is ok for me only under one condition: if I can change this behaviour,

I really liked the idea of Jono's power user community. But, honestly, I do not want to install extra tools to do some basic modifications to the system. Heck! What next? Will Ubuntu 12.04 include the great feature of a fixed wallpaper which I cannot change, because of a design decision? Or will I be forced to never open more than five windows at once, because of a design decision, where somebody of the Ayatana team decided that more than five windows per virtual desktop are confusing the normal users?
Will I need Ubuntu Tweak to change the desktop wallpaper, or to change the resolution of my screen, or to change the system sounds?
I find it already restricting enough that I have to install CCSM to configure the behaviour of the launcher. Especially if CCSM is cluttered with unnecessary options, especially if it does not work correctly with unity and easily breaks the system but just clicking on the wrong option.

Tell me, anybody, where is Ubuntu going? Are 91 voters enough to make obvious that something has to change? Or will this discussion be buried in silence because the official Canonical developers ignore it? Tell me, will this end like Bug 668415 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/668415) where 89 people voted for the simple possibility to configure the position of the launcher and instead gut rebuffed several times wit...

Read more...

tekstr1der (tekstr1der) wrote :

Yes, these displays of hubris on the part of the unity development clan (which reflect on Ubuntu as a whole) are very unsettling and difficult to accept. I'm not sure if it's tunnel-vision with their eyes on a long-term goal with no distractions (read: options) or ignorance as to how users are accustomed to using computers regularly (read: dock launchers minimize windows).

The number of me-too's here clearly reflect a great desire for at least the option, even if not by default, for this expected behavior. I simply cannot wrap my head around the fact that if Mark S. et al are actually using natty/oneiric with Unity, how they are not also frustrated by the extra mouse movement, mouse clicks, and eye movement which have now become necessary to accomplish ordinary (formerly simple) tasks of window management. That aside, if they think the current behavior is just dandy, why not throw the rest of us users a bone and allow this feature/behavior to be optional.

The community responded with desire for this functionality. Marco, in turn, submitted a patch for review. Please now just review, fix the nits, and add the little tick-box in CCSM so we can enjoy using Unity efficiently. Done deal. Happy users. Is that not important any longer? 200,000 not looking likely with the attitude displayed here.

tekstr1der (tekstr1der) wrote :

Oops. 200 _million_.

qmax (qwiglydee) wrote :

I guess the main question is:
whether these cases (this and some other "wontfix"es) are just an acidents (because of bad patches code, bad moon phases, or seasonal affective disorder among Aetana),
or this is general developement policy (to ignore users' feedback, make design desisions more priority over users' opinion, and making users away of being able to customize desktop).

In latter case, as SRoesgen emotionaly stated, we cannot expect any more good from Unity mainstream and should just completely quit using Unity, keeping all our users/customers/relatives/colleagues (whom we tech support by job or by friendship) away from it, switching to some other, more friendly and customizable, desktop systems.

In first case, a solution could be to fork Unity and make parallel, more "democratic" distribution, with less responsibilities, but with more fits to users expectations.
There are already several refused patches to apply, several requested features to implement, and at least one package (ubuntutweak) to integrate.
This could be the way to make ubuntu "for people"

Sebastien Bacher (seb128) wrote :

Could you stop such comments? Softwares behaviour can't please all users who have different workflows, the fact that the unity team took design decisions which are different from your habits doesn't mean those are wrong, they might take less technical users and confusing behaviour for them in consideration.

The unity choices are often driven by design and confirmed or not by user testing.

Those commenting that quite some users showed in that bug they don't agree the decision, it doesn't mean those use are representative, those who know enough to use a bug tracker and care enough to comment on it are quite technical users, their need might be different from most of the non technical users. You can also note that GNOME3 removed the minimize button from their wm controls, you can read their rational on https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-February/msg00192.html

Sebastien Bacher (seb128) wrote :

Some extra comments:

> When the window of a program/application is already focused and you click the corresponding launcher icon (of that program) you expect usually that something happens

You might do, but non technical users might get really confused if they dialog go away because they click on the "show me the application" icon twice by error (double click instead of simple click for example)

Note that hidden options have a cost in work, code readability and bugs, the unity team decided from the start to focus on solid code and having things done one way and well rather than letting lot of flexibility and options and having buggy code

Everyone who wants to use a computer will have to learn how to use it.

"non technical users might get really confused if their dialog goes away because they click on the "show me the application" icon twice by error"
They'll figure it out eventually. Meanwhile people who know what they want to do are perpetually annoyed by decisions like this.

I thought since mostly technical people consciously use linux they'd figure more in canonical's plans. Not catering to them will probably turn out to be a bad decision.

If non buggy code was such a high priority unity should have been optional for a couple of ubuntu releases more.

2011/6/24 Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>

> Some extra comments:
>
> > When the window of a program/application is already focused and you
> click the corresponding launcher icon (of that program) you expect
> usually that something happens
>
> You might do, but non technical users might get really confused if they
> dialog go away because they click on the "show me the application" icon
> twice by error (double click instead of simple click for example)
>
> Citation needed - otherwise this is no better than the anecdotal evidence
provided here by users that this behavior *is* confusing and unintuitive.

@#135 about more or less technical users:

If you (Canonical) don't respect the needs of the technical users, you possibly make it more difficult to reach the 200 Million users goal: The technical users are multiplicatiors for other, less technical, "normal" users: They tell them about the possibility of another OS, they can convince them about the advantages of this OS, they can help to install and to manage the OS.
In the past, I recommended Ubuntu to friends and family and convinced quite some of them to use Ubuntu.
But now, I can't recommend Ubuntu any more. It is not just this bug, but this is symptomatic: My main argument for choosing Ubuntu was the great ability to configure it to personal needs. (One of the first things I showed to new users was the great flexibility of the old gnome panel.)
Now this argument is lost (unless you use another DE, which I do, but I'm not sure whether this is a good choice for less technical users...), Canonical-Ubuntu became a less-is-more,-take-it-or-leave-it thing, just like Mac OS.

Conclusion:
If you focus too much on less technical users, you risk to lose both technical and less technical users.

Michal Predotka (mpredotka) wrote :

Workspace switcher icon, Applications icon (the one with plus sign in a cap of coffee), Files and Folders icon and Ubuntu icon, also every icon in top panel work in the way that on one click they show something, on another they hide it. Is this also confusing to users? I don't think so. So, why the same behaviour with minimising application's windows might be confusing?

Apparently canonical's targeted userbase will start drooling on their keyboards even more if they're presented with such an option.

2011/6/25 mmiicc <email address hidden>

> Workspace switcher icon, Applications icon (the one with plus sign in a
> cap of coffee), Files and Folders icon and Ubuntu icon, also every icon
> in top panel work in the way that on one click they show something, on
> another they hide it. Is this also confusing to users? I don't think so.
> So, why the same behaviour with minimising application's windows might
> be confusing?

And if not minimization, then rig the button to disable scale mode on second
click (first click shows all open windows side by side, second click returns
to normal). It is extremely unintuitive that, by default, you cannot escape
scale mode once you enable it, no matter what you try: click on the icon
(doesn't work), click on the desktop (doesn't work), click on the panel
(doesn't work), click on a random window (works, but brings that window on
top even if you don't want that).

I'm starting to think that some dogfooding could improve Unity
significantly. Take the designers' Macs away and force them to use Unity
exclusively for a couple of months and some of these "won't fix" issues
might just be reconsidered. Hm, make that Unity+Inkscape+GIMP and record
their reactions, too. (Yes, I'm being ridiculous here. Mostly. It's obvious
that this bug report is now dead.)

Well, I tried using the branch with the source of unity 3.6.18 and to my surprise I found that unexpectedly, It behaves the same way as normal unity.

I had installed it in /opt/unity and I had verified that I was running the same installation.

Is there some other setting that needs to be done to use the compiled unity. I successfully builded unity (after building nux) following http://www.faqoverflow.com/askubuntu/28470.html

Can anyone figure out what's going wrong.

@seb128:
"Softwares behaviour can't please all users who have different workflows"

Agree, but they should provide options to try get closer to please these users, at least.

"The unity choices are often driven by design and confirmed or not by user testing. Those commenting that quite some users showed in that bug they don't agree the decision, it doesn't mean those use are representative, those who know enough to use a bug tracker and care enough to comment on it are quite technical users, their need might be different from most of the non technical users."

Yes, but how many technical users participate of these user testing? I'm sure that this kind of users is a representative part of Ubuntu ecosystem.

"You can also note that GNOME3 removed the minimize button from their wm controls, you can read their rational on https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-February/msg00192.html"

Sure, *but* the minimize button can be enabled again through gnome-tweak-tool. This way, the non-technical users that don't use minimize at all, have no unecessary buttons and more technical users that want this button back, can enable it. I think it's clear that there is a difference between the two decisions (from GNOME team and Canonical).

Anyway, I think that, unfortunately, the decision is already take.

@rohit-kumar-saraf: the unity trunk version doesn't include this functionality (my branch, that is linked to this report has the new functionality, but there is a known bug - related to bug #724045 - that I'll not fix, since the new code won't be merged with trunk).

qmax (qwiglydee) wrote :

Also
> You can also note that GNOME3 removed the minimize button from their wm controls, you can read their rational on
> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-February/msg00192.html

The last sentence of this says:
> The real form of feedback that we need going from GNOME 3.0 to 3.2 is careful observation of how users are using GNOME 3 -
> are they figuring out how to use the overview and workspaces and message tray as we expect them to use them,
> or are they doing cumbersome workarounds because we took away essential features.

This is quite different of what happens here.

SRoesgen (s-roesgen) wrote :

Hoping that enough people read this, I will write a few more words here:

I started a discussion on the Ubuntu Power Users mailing list (<email address hidden>) and I want to invite you all to join the list and participate in the conversation/discussion.

I hope there is a chance that at least some people of Canonical will listen to the results of the discussion in the group.

Especially I tried -- or am trying-- to convince the users there that we need a tool for a better configuration of the system (especially Dash and Launcher). And we need it to be installed by default in the normal standard installation of Ubuntu.

A good start would be, for instance, to have Marco Biscaro's, patch integrated in Ubuntu and make it a configurable option. So the default behaviour would still be according the design decisions but one still can change the behaviour via the configuration tool. Another things would be to trip Ubuntu Tweak down to some basic feature and add to this trimmed down version those configuration options which, for some moronic reason, are currently only accessible via CCSM. I think that especially these Unity options , which are integrated in CCSM, should be part of the Unity/Ubuntu version of the normal Gnome Control Panel. There is not sense to make a user download CCSM just to change some basic behaviour of the system. Additionally the main problem is that CCSM is dangerous: I do not know how often exactly I broke Unity because I changed something in CCSM.

So that is not good and we need to do something against it. I hope that at least Jono Bacon will live up to his functions as a community manager and answer to those complaints on the Ubuntu Power Users List. Maybe we can work together so that they will at last listen to our complaints.

So again, please join the list and perhaps we will find a way to improve Unity. And perhaps we will manage to Unity those two groups of users which currently are separated by the policies of the Canonical developers. I want an Ubuntu with Unity. And I want this Ubuntu to be a good choice for normal users and for advanced users. It must be possible to get to this point somehow.

Perhaps they will listen to us, if we all together join this mailing list and start to come up with ideas via the normal way.

I hope that Jono will answer to the complaints on the list within the next day. Otherwise I would be very disappointed by Canonical's efforts to listen to its community and communicate with its community.

max (maxozilla) on 2011-07-03
summary: - Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking it's Launcher Icon
+ Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
SRoesgen (s-roesgen) wrote :

Did you all know that somebody tried to raise a discsussion on the Ayatana Mailing List?

Have a look at the archive https://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana/maillist.html
Look for "Hide application windows via launcher" From: Ed Lin, 2011-06-21.

There are no real, official comments by Canonical employees. Would be wonderful to hear something about that from the Canonical perspective. Instead they are completely ignoring the whole issue.

You would normally expect that somebody would be so mature to reconsider something that was said before. If some developer stated at the beginning of the whole discussion that they do not want the launcher behaviour to be changed, then: so be it. But when these developer hear about the uproar this causes they should try to think again about the whole issue. Instead they are behaving like children that are offended because somebody did not like their idea.

Most people here do not opt for a complete change of the DEFAULT behaviour of the launcher. They just want the possibility to configure the launcher behaviour.
By the way: the term "to CONFIGURE" seems to be the main issue with the whole changes that Unity brought. Nobody wants to tweak the whole system. But a little bit of freedom and individuality should be possible.

Let me quote something from Wikipedia
A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed

qmax (qwiglydee) wrote :

@SRoesgen,
IMHO that discussion makes no sense for developers.
They have another tasks with more priority (like to consider support of two-button mouse too complicated and breaking workflows between tablets and desktops)

What makes sense is to decide whether we need to FORK unity or just abandon it.

The way this is being handled (ignored) is disgusting.

Roland, that's nonsense. I've commented on this bug, stating our
position clearly. That's not ignoring, that's taking a decision and
moving on. You should do the same, please.

"Move on" is cheap talk when our day-to-day workflow is impacted in such a
way. And if there's anything that's nonsense, it's the dismissal of
community patches and contributions.

Roland's expression is most fitting here.

Rasto (rasto-klc) wrote :

I have moved on: "away from Unity"

Jorgen Bodde (jorgb) wrote :

Until this is resolved, I will stay in Classic Ubuntu with Docky. Unity
annoys me to no end this way. It is like it has huge potential to offer
a lot, but instead it just doesn't offer enough. The same goes for the
lenses. It allows me to find my files real easy, but the only thing I
can do is click to execute? What about basic operations
(cut/copy/paste/open folder)? It is just not useful enough this way, and
counter productive because in general everything now involves more
clicks and mouse movement to get stuff done.

With regards,
- Jorgen Bodde

I'm still using Unity - just to make that clear.

Mark, I appreciate that you did comment, and make a decision, and move on. However in a case like this, don't you think it is only fair to revisit the situation if so many users are making a fuss? All they (or shall I say, we) asked for was a simple option, not even something as default. Someone even took the time and effort to write patch, only to have it rejected (for?). This is not the way Open Source software is supposed to work, at least not in what is supposed to be a friendly and understanding community.

Let us also remember that this was brought up on the Ayatana mailing list, and basically went no where. We as users are far from unaware of the fact that we are being overlooked, and I'm hoping that this does not be the case with other similar problems in Ubuntu.

SRoesgen (s-roesgen) wrote :

@Roland

I am afraid it IS handled the same way in other cases. For instance, bug 668415 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/668415) was treated the same.

Users (= 105 "Affects me" voters) complained about the inability to move the launcher. They said they want the option to move the position of the launcher (just the OPTION, they did not want the default position changed).

It was told to us that this "won't fix" by design decision. A user offered to write a patch. But the patch was never written. (I would have been demotivated , too, if I had been in his place -> why should I write a patch which will never be used? Not everybody wants to fork unity just for the sake of two or three changes).

The whole way to state that something is implemented by "design decision" is an interesting way to answer a question. It is is like A asks: "why is it done that way" and B answers "it is the best way to do it that way". After B's simple answer the problem is that A still does not know WHY it is the best way. To say "it is a design decision" is no argument at all; it is no proof at all; it is no reason at all. Worse is the fact that saying "it is a design decision" takes one thing away from the user: the possibility to argument against the decision.
And btw. to say that Canonical made usability tests etc. with a group of users is NO proof at all. The group of people who were chosen for the tests was too small (15 people) and the number of different types of users was not equally divided among the test subjects. (see http://design.canonical.com/2010/11/usability-testing-of-unity/)
Because of these reasons the group of test subjects was not representative for anything.
I appreciate the fact that Canonical did sponsor a research of usability on a group of test subjects. But 105 voters in bug 668415 and 97 voters on this bug here should make you rethink any design decision which was based on 15 people. Heck! I do not even know if these "design decisions" are in anyway connected to the usability tests conducted at the end of 2010. But if they are not based on these tests, then tell me what exactly is the base of reason which made these design decisions come into existence?

@SRoesgen there was a patch produced for that bug, somewhat unofficially, and there was a ppa and all. I don't have links off hand, but I remember it well.

Anyway, I'm not going to pay much more attention to this bug. I've become aware of how Canonical handles things (after some discussion outside this bug), and I'm not any further interested to discuss anything with them. Disappointing, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

When I started using GNU/Linux, there was an attitude of "If you don't like the way a tool behaves, just customize it via it's settings dialogue".
Today the most fameous distribution does not even want to simply add an ordinary checkbox for an existing patch in ccsm/gconf/dconf/whateverconf?

Besides this, the default way the launcher behaves, should be the way the user expects. I actually don't know how the launchers of Win7, MacOSX and KDE behave. But software should not break usability rules an user learned for years, if there is no very good reason.

tekstr1der (tekstr1der) wrote :

@Marco Biscaro: I finally got around to applying your patch to natty unity 3.8.16. Thanks so much for fixing this!

Are there plans for a patched branch of unity 4.6.x in oneiric? How does one go about fixing this behavior/applying your patch in oneiric?

Brian Bentsen (bimsebasse) wrote :

Shaking my head in disbelief at what's going on here - a simple feature that is standard launcher/icon behaviour because intuitive and helpful is not being implemented even though clicking once on an icon currently does - nothing. Design? Would Unity fall apart if clicking a launcher icon minimized the window? Is alienating Ubuntu newcomer expectations so small a worry?

Seems like a case of a group of people working so hard and focused on one thing they lose touch with what is common sense and helpful, become liable to have strange ideas and run with them blindly.

Sergei Solo (solomatkins) wrote :

Why this bug status is "Won't fix"?

Because obviously they don't take users seriously. It is "my way or the highway" on bugs like this.

Brandon Mayes (bdmayes) wrote :

I would like to preface this comment by saying I don't really care one way or the other about this particular feature. I stumbled across this because a friend of mine asked me if I knew how to accomplish this. However, I find it rather disheartening that Canonical seems determined to squash such a highly requested feature. As many others have previously stated, all that the users are asking for is an option (perhaps configured through ccsm) that allows them to accomplish this. I don't understand why such an option cannot be offered, and why a patch that was created was rejected outright. The fact that this is listed as a "won't fix" seems ironic and completely contradictory to the following statement about the bottom of the "About Ubuntu" page (quote taken directly from ubuntu.com):

"We hope it will bring a touch of light to your computing – and we hope that you'll join us in helping to build the next version too."

Mr. Shuttleworth -- If you read this then I hope you understand that people are trying to help build Ubuntu here and you are refusing to let them. I can't see any other logical interpretation here. So many users are requesting this feature and yet you dismiss them and their request. It just doesn't make sense.

In any case, since Linux is (supposed to be) about choice you can typically find multiple ways of accomplishing the same thing. While this is not quite the exact same thing, the following page has a workaround available that will minimize the window currently in focus (and all others belonging to the same group) with any desired key/mouse combination. It doesn't even require you to click on the icon in launcher -- simply focus one window in the group you wish to minimize and then execute your shortcut from anywhere on the screen. As of writing this post, the "workaround" is the third answer listed:

http://askubuntu.com/questions/36433/why-cant-i-use-the-unity-launcher-icon-to-minimize-applications-windows

Rocko (rockorequin) wrote :

After 6 months of using natty, I still find this to be unity's most annoying and frustrating bug.

@Brandon Mayes (bdmayes) the order of the answers vary with "Active", "Votes", "Oldest". You may point for the answer you like indicating the autor (now there is five answers, from: tobi, Cas, desgua, nem75 and kuro) ;-)

eZFlow (breakdevize) wrote :

I clearly see the cause of those bad decisions made by Mark Shuttleworth. He seems to be a huge Apple fan boy who really thinks that EVERYTHING what Apple does is a good decision! Which ofcourse is naive and leads them to bad design choices. I have used both OSX / iOS and compared it with GNOME/Android. It becomes very obvious to me when i'm used to easily perform a basic task in GNOME/Android to find out it's much more complicated or even impossible in OSX/iOS! Apple tries to justify this by saying we want to keep things simple, haha don't make me laugh, you are only making the simple things more complicated while making it illogical as well. This is the direction Ubuntu is heading which is very sad to say the least.

But the Unity design decision which annoys me the most is that window controls disappear for the maximized window when another unmaximized window is focused: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/762277
Now users first have to focus the maximized window which as i explained above is a perfect example of complicating the simple tasks.
This design flaw can be partly solved by implementing logical dock behavior as requested by MOST users. Mark, instead of listening to your usability "experts" which probably use and are used to OSX and are tricked into believing that all which Apple has done is the way to go! No no nooo stop this madness now and for gods sake listen to the real usability experts which are the majority of the users. Majority vs minority, logic vs illogic and still Shuttleworth defies logic and thinks that by just commenting and dismissing what the majority wants, equals progress. Unity has potential, but this dictatorial Steve Jobs style decision making is bad for everyone! Just use your common sense and come up with practical, most effortless solutions for those daily tasks performed, now that's progress, not the other way around.

bas india (baskarans) wrote :

I reckon Rocko (rockorequin) : After 6 months of using natty, I still find this to be unity's most annoying and frustrating bug.
Yes, its really frustrating. Every day I curse this decision and "why they made it like this?" Its annoying!!

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

If this is "by design", then the design is wrong. If I am writing an application, I have Glade window maximised, Firefox (with docs) maximised, gedit maximised, and few terminal windows. My desktop was really clean when using standard GNOME panels, right now I have to do the following steps:

1. click on gedit window
2. minimize it
3. click on firefox window
4. minimize it
5. click on glade window
6. minimize it

Insted of just clicking launchers next to each other OR clicking "Minimize all windows" button on panel. Minimize all windows works in unity, but after opening another window - all windows are coming back.

Or - if I have Firefox and Thunderbird maximized - I am browsing the web, the want to have a quick look at thunderbird:

- Click on Thunderbird's icon on the launcher
- Do whatever you want
- Move the mouse to the upper corner of the screen and aim to hit the "minimize" button

In GNOME:

Click on Thunderbird minimized to maximize, click again to minimize. WITHOUT additional clicks and moving the mouse!

Unity adds ~1500 mouse clicks daily and it reduces productivity a lot. It looks good on screenshots though.

W Karaki (wafaa-karaki) wrote :

"Unity adds ~1500 mouse clicks daily and it reduces productivity a lot."

I have to agree 100% with this! I usually have codeblocks, some documents, writer, firefox, and other programs open all at once. And while writing my programs I need to switch a lot between documents to have a quick look.

If Unity's design was supposed to guide users into an easier work flow, it didn't. It did change my behaviour, but let me tell you what the actual effect is:
Because I don't have the option of clicking to maximize-have my quick look-click in same location to minimize, instead having to aim at the small unclear minimize button at the top of the screen, I seem to have unconsciously changed my behaviour to avoid clicking the minimize button, and instead go for the window I was using. I assume this was the intention of the designers?
The result? TERRIBLE!
I now find myself clicking the needed document, having my look, and then looking for original application I was working on, which of course has 2-3 windows open (usually more) and maximized, so I click it, and of course up pops the WRONG window (not the one I last highlighted) but the one that falls next in Unity's weird ordering list (press Alt+` ). So then follows more clicking around as I double click to spread the windows (hey, at least it looks nice doing that, right?) looking for the correct window in the tiny little windows, and clicking that to get back where I wanted.

I usually like my computer. We're best friends. But I have to say, I've been getting more and more physically abusive towards it recently. Design changes meant to make work flow easier are a good thing, when they WORK!

Seriously, I got a lot of work to do! Unity's launcher at this point is just pathetic and just gets in my way every time.

/end rant.

Eugene Romanenko (eros2) wrote :

Fully agree with commenters above.

When I work with some applications I need to look into another windows, to see log changes in terminal window, online contacts in instant messenger, etc... Before I just click on needed window, watch changes, click again without mouse move and continue browsing or coding.

Now I must click, then move mouse to minimize button and click again, my mouse waste miles! If I have two terminals - things is much worse - I click to bring scaled windows, select window... oh oh clicks and moves, moves and clicks...

Also about hated indicators instead of tray icons - before I just move mouse to battery icon and watch tooltip with power state, no clicks. Now I move mouse to icon, click to view information, click again to hide information...

Wasting clicks, wasting time.

Why click if we may not click? Why move if we may not move? Why make interface so bad? Why?
I understand, interface must be differ from well known MS Windows, but interface also must be better, not worse!

Latest interface additions from Canonical (Unity, indicators) just make interface annoying.

I love Ubuntu, and want see it better and better, but things became worse and worse. :-(

Also GNOME Shell - yet another piece of madness... Not a Canonical flaw, just to mention.

Sergei Solo (solomatkins) wrote :

I fully agree with the majority. Especially since this action has not been assigned any function.

And this is an open source project?
Where is the openness to the devil? Direct dictatorship!

Members say that they need, but the developers do what they think users need. Why is this so?

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

There are certainly lots of people that would like this, myself included,
for the exact same reasons as the ones mentioned here (with the current
design, it's very difficult to switch to a different window (chat,
documentation) temporarily, then switch back to the original one).

Unfortunately, the designers do not seem to agree to this decision for
opaque "design reasons". Unless they decide to revisit their design, I'm
afraid everything we do or say will fall on deaf ears.

markba (mark-baaijens) wrote :

It seems that we, normal users as most commenters are, cannot see the rationale behind the design decision.

Maybe a (reponsible) designer can step in and explain us the pro's (we already know the con's ;-) ) about this design; as a prerequisite: I'm afraid, stating 'as designed' wil not do.

tekstr1der (tekstr1der) wrote :

The patch by Marco described in comment #58 fixes this abhorrent annoyance and helps to heal the usability disaster which is Unity.

If not for his work (which for reasons far from logical was not approved for merging) I would no longer be an Ubuntu user.

I am concerned going forward however. If I choose to continue using Ubuntu, will I be able to apply the same patch to a newer (oneiric) version of Unity? Has anyone here done so yet? Or, does the patch need to be specific to the Unity version?

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

If users will for example write to omgubuntu.co.uk, they'll make a poll, and ordinary users will be able to vote if they want this feature or not - so we'll see really how many users want this "feature".

The patch needs to be ported to unity 4.x. And I'm ready to do so, but only if I'm sure that the patch will be merged (I really don't want to invest my time to the code be rejected without apparent reason).

tekstr1der (tekstr1der) wrote :

@Marco: Thanks for the info. That's the answer I'd expected, unfortunately.

Your rationale is absolutely understandable. Thank you very much for your work on the natty patch.

timothymowens (timothymowens) wrote :

I would also like to see an option to be able to minimize with a single-click. Let's face it, the Unity Launcher is a dock. All 3rd party docks that are used in Ubuntu have a single click minimize, Mac OS X has a single-click minimize, Windows has always had a single-click minimize for their task bar, and even the 3rd party dock apps in Windows have a single-click minimize. As a multi-OS user, I get frustrated when this doesn't happen in Unity. Unity is about usability, but this detail is being ignored. I've read the reasons here for not allowing this, but I don't feel they are valid enough to not at least include the option to minimize with a single-click.

Please, please, please add this.

Felix Belzile (felixbelzile) wrote :

Agreed with everyone here.

The launcher already takes up a lot of space, so you might as well make it do something other than open an application.
Think about the basic design principles.

1. How often do you think people will want to open new applications?
2. How often will people want to minimize these applications?

Number two, if you haven't guessed correctly, will be used the most often... and it is the feature not supported.
There is no good reason to not make windows minimize on click, except to piss people off.
Yes, there is a minimize button on the top of every window. But look at the size of this button to the launcher. I don't think its a fair comparison. The amount of effort it takes to aim for the small button is way beyond what I have to do to click the massive launcher button.

I'm already disappointed enough with the launcher not being able to move locations. This is why I switched to Linux in the first place. I might as well go back to Windows and have a launcher that works the way I want it to.

Stop making decisions for us.
This goes against the meaning of the word Ubuntu.

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

This, reducing the font size and fixing some annoying bugs would make
Ubuntu perfect.

W dniu 16.10.2011 16:40, Felix Belzile pisze:
> Agreed with everyone here.
>
> The launcher already takes up a lot of space, so you might as well make it do something other than open an application.
> Think about the basic design principles.
>
> 1. How often do you think people will want to open new applications?
> 2. How often will people want to minimize these applications?
>
> Number two, if you haven't guessed correctly, will be used the most often... and it is the feature not supported.
> There is no good reason to not make windows minimize on click, except to piss people off.
> Yes, there is a minimize button on the top of every window. But look at the size of this button to the launcher. I don't think its a fair comparison. The amount of effort it takes to aim for the small button is way beyond what I have to do to click the massive launcher button.
>
> I'm already disappointed enough with the launcher not being able to move
> locations. This is why I switched to Linux in the first place. I might
> as well go back to Windows and have a launcher that works the way I want
> it to.
>
> Stop making decisions for us.
> This goes against the meaning of the word Ubuntu.
>

David Gomes (davidgomes) wrote :

This is the most annoying bug in Ubuntu, it just ruins the whole Unity experience.

Felix Belzile (felixbelzile) wrote :

OK, so a little update...

This BUG got me annoyed enough...

I downloaded the source for Unity, along with its development packages.
I literally touched up/copy pasted UNDER 20 LINES OF CODE... MAX!
Compiled, and reinstalled Unity.

I can now minimize windows from the launcher and quite enjoy it.

Please make this available for everyone... It was ridiculously easy to add, for a such a huge improvement in user experience.

UNDER 20 LINES OF CODE!!!

@Felix Belzile
Since you have already made the changes to your own local copy of the code, would you consider making the patch available? I doubt anyone would object if you were to attach the diff to this bug.

Rocko (rockorequin) wrote :

>Since you have already made the changes to your own local copy of the code,
> would you consider making the patch available?
> I doubt anyone would object if you were to attach the diff to this bug.

+1 from me!

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

>Since you have already made the changes to your own local copy of the code,
> would you consider making the patch available?
> I doubt anyone would object if you were to attach the diff to this bug.

Yes, I would surely compile it and maybe make a DEB out of it, so others could use it too!

Sergei Solo (solomatkins) wrote :

Yes, please! Make DEB package with patch, I'll grateful!

Sergei Solo (solomatkins) wrote :

For Ubuntu 11.10 if you can :)

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

To do this I'll need a patch. I'll try to make it on my own, but I don't guarantee that it'll work correctly.

Felix Belzile (felixbelzile) wrote :

Hi guys, sorry to get everyone’s hopes up. I'm using Unity 2D!

Here is a diff file for Unity 2D for what I have done.
To be honest, I tried to make a patch but got lost along the way...
I'm still pretty new to Linux.

razor (razorxpress) wrote :

I know why this bug won't be fixed. Because it makes no sense for a tablet with touch screen to minimize an app when user clicks the launcher icon. What will the user expect when they touch the launcher icon? The obvious answer is to list all the opened windows managers and then press the one they want to activate. Minimizing it, confuses the whole thing. Neither multiple icons can be used to represent individual nautilus windows. Other day I opened 200 nautilus windows to see how can I crash my Linux (it was slow but it did not crash). In 11.04 it opened all those windows but did not respect that I was in my first desktop and started to flow to all 4 virtual desktops. If same thing happens in unity launcher then it could go miles with such big icons made for tablets. If I am about to work with my computer and not just play mac vs pc, I always open more windows than what unity expects me to open. With this new interface of unity, even windows below current active window have started to disrespect me (even if they are clickable). Mouse will happily click any icons on Desktop but will not activate the window I want to open or close. Again the close button makes no sense for Mobile. Mobile devices can activate right click on launcher icons and happily close. Welcome to post pc age guys. Be ready to throw your laptops and computers and start to buy tablets.

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

2011/10/18 razor <email address hidden>

> I know why this bug won't be fixed. Because it makes no sense for a
> tablet with touch screen to minimize an app when user clicks the
> launcher icon. What will the user expect when they touch the launcher
> icon? The obvious answer is to list all the opened windows managers and
> then press the one they want to activate. Minimizing it, confuses the
> whole thing. Neither multiple icons can be used to represent individual
> nautilus windows.

You are missing a trivial solution to your hypothetical(*) tablet issue:
first click activates window picker; second click minimizes all windows,
third click restores them. Problem solved. Touch workflow is not impacted,
people get a way to quickly minimize a window and fix one of the most
egregious bugs in Unity.

That's what we have been suggesting since the very first comments in this
thread and related bug report, and this is what a user kindly implemented
back in 11.04.

(*) I say hypothetical, because Unity in 11.04 and 11.10 is not targetted at
tablets. This has been made clear time and time again, by closing
tablet-related usability bug reports and feature requests. (Besides, touch
input cannot work with invisible menus and window controls, so it's pretty
obvious tablets are not being taken into account - ergo, this is a red
herring).

Michael (michaeljt) wrote :

> You are missing a trivial solution to your hypothetical(*) tablet issue:
> first click activates window picker; second click minimizes all windows,
> third click restores them. Problem solved. Touch workflow is not impacted,
> people get a way to quickly minimize a window and fix one of the most
> egregious bugs in Unity.
On OS X/exposé, one click raises all windows, a second hides them and click-and-hold activates the picker.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposé_(Mac_OS_X)>.

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

2011/10/18 Michael <email address hidden>

> > You are missing a trivial solution to your hypothetical(*) tablet issue:
> > first click activates window picker; second click minimizes all windows,
> > third click restores them. Problem solved. Touch workflow is not
> impacted,
> > people get a way to quickly minimize a window and fix one of the most
> > egregious bugs in Unity.
> On OS X/exposé, one click raises all windows, a second hides them and
> click-and-hold activates the picker.
> See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposé_(Mac_OS_X)>.
>
>
That works, too!

ldglance (ilovechrist) wrote :

I couldn't not post on this.

just a quick few things that annoy me in unity. first of all is when you have lets say firefox open and you click on the button on the unity bar it does not minimize it. Second thing is i absolutely hate that all my menus are hidden on the top bar having me have to move my mouse up top and wait then find the menu i want and then do what i want. where if they did not hide it would be a lot faster.

o ya and when i do minimize a window and i click on firefox again it does not just restore the window though it maximizes it. which requires me to adjust everything again.

this bugs me so much in unity that i am switching back to gnome this may be ok on tablets but it kills my productivity when its on my desktop.

Shannon (xrfang-gmail) wrote :

I would like to point out that Bug #877444, reported by me, is NOT a duplicate of this bug. This one is a feature request, and #877444 is definitely a bug.

razor (razorxpress) wrote :

@ The Fiddler (stapostol). If you look from a Desktop prospective it makes sense. Again when you see it from a tablet prospective user clicks(touches) the launcher icon, then window picker waits till the user clicks on any one of the windows from window picker, if the user again clicks, launcher icon shows the window picker again. How weird it looks on a tablet to minimize anything at all. Tablets will be running few applications and so it is a feature. Every window will be able to fill the space below it, so user does not need to minimize anything. Even Mandrake 9.1 (that came with my hp) was easier than this.

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

2011/10/19 razor <email address hidden>

> How weird it
> looks on a tablet to minimize anything at all.

No idea, how weird would it look? While you are at it, how weird would it
look to have multiple instances of the same application running on a tablet?
Indeed, why would you even need window management on a table at all? Modern
tablets always work in fullscreen mode!

As I said in my previous post, the "tablet" is a red herring. The current
incarnation of Unity is a 100% desktop shell, not a tablet shell, not a
phone shell, but a desktop shell. Its developers, even Mark himself, have
made this very clear. If, as you say, a feature makes good sense for the
desktop, then I want that feature.

When (and if) tablets become a concern, then we can revisit this discussion.
I'm quite certain that there'll be bigger fish to fry first (autohiding
dash? tiny window buttons? hidden menus?)

Robert Hrovat (robi-hipnos) wrote :

OMG is this behaviour annoying. I have to click 2-3 times more just to hide Windows I don't currently need, but will definately need them shortly after. Not to mention that most of non maximised windows are placed wrong, so first I have to ALT+grab to move them so I can click minimize. All I can think of Unity is that such small solutions that are not implemented are killing desktop Linux.

Usually I switched to new version of Ubuntu as soon as it got out, with 11.10 I had to reinstall 11.04 - I was just to slow because of darn Unity!!!

Kewball (plattem) wrote :

This attitude of "moving on" with no real explanation and no real acknowledgement of the dissenters' position or proposed solutions shows a stifling, group-think bureaucracy and reveals a brittle organization that is actively rejecting the very people who were early adopters and promoters of the Brand.

The official condescension would be bad enough if the technical design were correct, but the "design" being questioned here is clearly wrong.

Whether double-clicks, multiple-clicks, or Morse-code-clicks accomplish the action is important but not quite the point: the design flaw is that the *nix tradition of the end user having the freedom (yes, freedom) to change the behavior of the software is being decided by... who? The 26 committers? The 15-member focus group? Certainly not the many people who have taken the time and effort to point out an important issue here on launchpad.net.

Ubuntu have decided Unity the only desktop environment. Ubuntu have decided Launcher will have default actions. Ubuntu have decided Launcher will have no user-modifiable behaviors, no configurable "double-click-to-minimize" settings.

Ubuntu's "my way or the highway" attitude, expressed here and realized in the Launcher code is the design flaw.

eZFlow (breakdevize) wrote :
Download full text (3.1 KiB)

The design flaw is in the core of their organisation so i have moved on for
the better. Chakra project puts Ubuntu to shame in every aspect. KDE is
many times faster, more mature and miles more advanced then GNOME will ever
be. I have never experienced such a smooth desktop before and i always
thought its because of the drivers or the X server but the problem lies
within GNOME.

I recommend everyone who likes choice and customization to switch to KDE.
Ubuntu treats their community like crap so they absolutely dont deserve
anything back. Once Ubuntu starts loosing users, they will think twice and
i for one am not recommending Ubuntu anymore.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Kewball <email address hidden> wrote:

> This attitude of "moving on" with no real explanation and no real
> acknowledgement of the dissenters' position or proposed solutions shows
> a stifling, group-think bureaucracy and reveals a brittle organization
> that is actively rejecting the very people who were early adopters and
> promoters of the Brand.
>
> The official condescension would be bad enough if the technical design
> were correct, but the "design" being questioned here is clearly wrong.
>
> Whether double-clicks, multiple-clicks, or Morse-code-clicks accomplish
> the action is important but not quite the point: the design flaw is that
> the *nix tradition of the end user having the freedom (yes, freedom) to
> change the behavior of the software is being decided by... who? The 26
> committers? The 15-member focus group? Certainly not the many people
> who have taken the time and effort to point out an important issue here
> on launchpad.net.
>
> Ubuntu have decided Unity the only desktop environment. Ubuntu have
> decided Launcher will have default actions. Ubuntu have decided
> Launcher will have no user-modifiable behaviors, no configurable
> "double-click-to-minimize" settings.
>
> Ubuntu's "my way or the highway" attitude, expressed here and realized
> in the Launcher code is the design flaw.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Natty (Alpha 3 + daily builds) is the possibility to
> click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of
> that application, not only to launch/restore it.
> mlaverdiere's futher addition:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733...

Read more...

@Kewball
"Ubuntu have decided Unity the only desktop environment."

What about GNOME 3 with the GNOME Shell instead of Unity (install gnome-shell, pick session type GNOME), GNOME 3 Fallback (package gnome-session-fallback, pick GNOME Classic), Xfce4 (install xubuntu-desktop and pick session type Xubuntu, or install Xubuntu instead of Ubuntu), LXDE (install lubuntu-desktop and pick session type Lubuntu, or install Lubuntu instead of Ubuntu), or KDE 4 Plasma (install kubuntu-desktop and pick session type Kubuntu, or install Kubuntu instead of Ubuntu)?

GNOME 3 with the GNOME Shell, as well as GNOME 3 Fallback, are installable from the universe component of the official, default-enabled repositories on Ubuntu 11.10 (and before that Ubuntu Classic was available). Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Lubuntu are official Ubuntu derivatives (though Lubuntu is only official as of version 11.10) and their functionality is available for any already-installed Ubuntu system by installing the corresponding -desktop packages, from either the universe or main components of the official, default-enabled repositories. (You don't generally need to know or care what component something comes from to install it, I've just included that info in case it is of interest.)

@eZFlow
"KDE is many times faster .... then GNOME ...."

Can you cite evidence for this? That is not my experience, nor the experience of any of the users I've communicated with except you, even if you are specifically comparing the KDE 4 Plasma desktop to a GNOME 3 desktop with Unity or GNOME Shell. (If you are comparing GNOME 2 to KDE 4 Plasma, then your assertion seems even more unlikely.) In recent years, widespread community belief has held, and my own personal experience has seemed to confirm, that KDE is the most resource-intensive desktop environment. That could be wrong though--widespread belief is not always true, and there may well be a systematic flaw or limitation in the ways I have tested KDE.

zwigno (zwigno) wrote :

I just want to add a "I also think this sucks" to this thread. I commonly (used to) click on the icon to bring it to the front to check status (say it's a terminal or mail app), then click again to put it away again. Really annoying to have to navigate to move/focus/minimize every time. I thought Unity was suppose to *improve* user experience?

Magnes (magnesus2) wrote :

There is a patch that fixes it but it was rejected.

eZFlow (breakdevize) wrote :

@Eliah
Im comparing GNOME3.2 and 2.x with KDE4.7. It may be true that KDE4 was slower in the beginning stages but atm i experience the opposite. KWin outperforms Compiz and everything feels much snappier. Here are some benchmarks with KDE4.6 which does not have the performance improvements added in 4.7 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_desktop_managers1&num=9

I suggest you try out Chakra and report your results because i sure was impressed how light and more advanced it felt compared to Ubuntu.

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

Gnome 3.2 does not use Compiz, it uses Mutter which is significantly faster
on my system (6310m with radeon drivers).

2011/11/10 eZFlow <email address hidden>

> @Eliah

eZFlow (breakdevize) wrote :

I know but Ubuntu still uses compiz with GNOME3.2. You tried KDE4.7?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:42 AM, The Fiddler <email address hidden>wrote:

> Gnome 3.2 does not use Compiz, it uses Mutter which is significantly faster
> on my system (6310m with radeon drivers).
>
> 2011/11/10 eZFlow <email address hidden>
>
> > @Eliah
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Natty (Alpha 3 + daily builds) is the possibility to
> click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of
> that application, not only to launch/restore it.
> mlaverdiere's futher addition:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions
>

qmax (qwiglydee) wrote :

@Eliah, @ezFlow, @The_Fiddler.

This is a thread to shame canonical design decisions, and to condemn unity for it's misusability.
Please, stay on topic :)

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :
Download full text (3.1 KiB)

The correct comparison is Unity vs KDE, not Gnome 3.2 vs KDE. As I said,
Gnome 3.2 is visibly faster (on my system) than either KDE or Compiz. KDE
4.7 appears to scroll and animate smoother than Unity (and KDE 4.6), but
not as smoothly as Gnome 3.2.

(Again, this is on my 6310m with the radeon drivers).

2011/11/10 eZFlow <email address hidden>

> I know but Ubuntu still uses compiz with GNOME3.2. You tried KDE4.7?
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:42 AM, The Fiddler <<email address hidden>
> >wrote:
>
> > Gnome 3.2 does not use Compiz, it uses Mutter which is significantly
> faster
> > on my system (6310m with radeon drivers).
> >
> > 2011/11/10 eZFlow <email address hidden>
> >
> > > @Eliah
> >
> > --
> > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> > report.
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
> >
> > Title:
> > Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
> >
> > Status in Ayatana Design:
> > Won't Fix
> > Status in Unity:
> > Won't Fix
> > Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu:
> > Won't Fix
> >
> > Bug description:
> > What I do miss in Natty (Alpha 3 + daily builds) is the possibility to
> > click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows
> of
> > that application, not only to launch/restore it.
> > mlaverdiere's futher addition:
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
> >
> > My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> > this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
> >
> > 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> > *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> > *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> > yet;
> > 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> > open;
> > *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
> >
> > To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions
> >
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Natty (Alpha 3 + daily builds) is the possibility to
> click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of
> that application, not only to launch/restore it.
> mlaverdiere's futher addition:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subsc...

Read more...

tekstr1der (tekstr1der) wrote :

This bug report is requesting a fix based on expected functionality found commonly in other launchers/docks (AWN, Cairo Dock, Windows 7's task bar, etc.) but _not_ in Unity.

Adding to the list, the new plasma-icontasks for KDE also provides the expected minimize-on-click functionality, and greatly improves KDE's usability.

Currently, clicking the launcher icon for a focused app in Unity does exactly _nothing_... Ubu-FAIL!

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

As Ubuntu Design Team says - it's only to make the desktop feel consistent. They're worried about what should happen when user clicks on icon which has two windows. This won't minimize and will make users feel confused.

But, I simply can't understand HOW this will confuse users. Unity should allow minimizing ONLY when there's ONE window underneath the icon; simply - do something instead of doing absolutely nothing. When there are two windows, Unity currently shows spread and that's perfect. This is simply reducing usability a lot. Hope the developers will notice that.

Magnes (magnesus2) wrote :

Every other OS does that and somehow it doesn't confuse people. Does Ubuntu Design Team think Ubuntu users are somehow easier to confuse?

Danillo (danillo) wrote :

Hey, I have no idea about the technicalities of this, but couldn't this rejected patch become a compiz plugin like the Unity bottom launcher? (http://www.webupd8.org/2011/11/install-ubuntu-unity-bottom-launcher.html)

@danillo: yes, it could, but it will require too much effort do keep the new plugin updated with oficial version.

Another problem is that if we create a new plugin for each option, there is no possibility to combine the options between plugins. I mean, we can't have a launcher in bottom *and* minimize on click functionality, beacuse each feature resides on a different plugin.

Anyway, the feature was not accepted in upstream because "This is not an option I [Mark Shuttleworth] want to carry in the codebase."[1], despite the change represents only 0.09% of unityshell (the option adds 60 lines to the 62644 lines of unityshell plugin).

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/882274/comments/20

KillerKiwi (killerkiwi2005) wrote :

Maybe it could be merged in with Unity bottom launcher ?

In this case, the opposite problem happens: all the people that uses the official unityshell plugin (launcher on left) couldn't use the new option.

Marek Stasiak (marecki) wrote :

This is so weird. I had to switch back to 11.04
Design team was (and still is) wrong

spradders (junk-spradbery) wrote :

I fully agree - I frequently want to raise a window and look at something, then minimise it again. I should be able to do this with a couple of clicks on the launcher. It is expected behaviour.

There are already plenty of frustrations with Unity - simple things like "Ubuntu Unity Plugin Rotated" (to get the launcher on the bottom, not down the side) should be a standard option. I am really surprised by the complete lack of configuration options in the launcher. Please at least make a few tweaks (such as click to minimise) to make it easier to use.

Thanks, Mike.

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

I think that this bug report might be misunderstood by developers.

As @spradders said:
I frequently want to raise a window and look at something, then minimise it again. I should be able to do this with a couple of clicks on the launcher. It is expected behaviour.

EXACTLY. But following the reporter's idea will break Unity's current behaviour.

In order to archieve the behaviour that @spradders recommended, Unity should minimize on click ONLY when there's single, focused and raised window under the launcher's icon.

Currently, Unity does absolutely nothing. This is simply wrong and feels broken. When the icon is lit, highlights, it should DO something when clicked. Right now he have basic usability problem.

This bug report says that click should minimize all windows; that's incorrect and this bug should be abandoned, because it breaks Unity's current behaviour. Instead, it should say:

Minimize application on click when there's only one raised and focused window.

This won't break Unity's behaviour (except if Unity developers WANT it to do nothing and make user confused). So anyone, care to submit another bug for this? With statement that says that it's NOT a duplicate of this bug. I think this is main usability issue that leads users to other distros than Ubuntu. Just because they can't simply click-to-minimize for a quick peek.

Em 15-12-2011 16:30, sabby7890 escreveu:
> In order to archieve the behaviour that @spradders recommended, Unity
> should minimize on click ONLY when there's single, focused and raised
> window under the launcher's icon.
This would be inconsistent. Users will think "Why when I click the icon
sometimes it minimizes and sometimes it does absolutly nothing? This may
be a bug.". It should always do something (as proposed in comment #58)
or it should always do nothing (which, IMO, is bad but is the current
behaviour).

Cas (calumlind) wrote :

@sabby This has all been covered before and the Unity team are well aware of the discussion here but have said flat-out no to minimize a window/application from the Launcher in any form so creating another bug is pointless.

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

2011/12/15 Marco Biscaro <email address hidden>

> Em 15-12-2011 16:30, sabby7890 escreveu:
> > In order to archieve the behaviour that @spradders recommended, Unity
> > should minimize on click ONLY when there's single, focused and raised
> > window under the launcher's icon.
> This would be inconsistent. Users will think "Why when I click the icon
> sometimes it minimizes and sometimes it does absolutly nothing? This may
> be a bug.". It should always do something (as proposed in comment #58)
> or it should always do nothing (which, IMO, is bad but is the current
> behaviour).
>

Indeed. The obvious solution for multiple windows would be to run expose on
the first click (as it currently does) and minimize all windows in the
second click. Simple, obvious, discoverable and with prior art (AWN and
Docky).

tellapu (tellapu) wrote :

I also support very much that the window should minimise on the click of the launcher icon. For the multiple windows problems, I think #58 is a good solution. Thanks for all the work to make Unity more user-friendly.

Kewball (plattem) wrote :

On 12/15/2011 12:30 PM, sabby7890 wrote:
> ... I think this is main usability issue that leads users to other
> distros than Ubuntu. Just because they can't simply click-to-minimize
> for a quick peek.

Wrong. People are looking at other distros because of Ubuntu's
condescending "won't fix" attitude on this particular bug, among others.

--
Θ ̨Θƪ

Mark Bamberg (bambergm) wrote :

I think the Unity interface at present makes it too difficult to hide/minimize and app. It would seem intuitive to do it from the task bar

markba (mark-baaijens) wrote :

It's not that difficult: in this thread someone offered a patch but it was not accepted. This is purely a design decision.

David Gómez (dabisu) wrote :

What i really hate it's the "It brokes our design goals, we won't fix it. Period" attitude from the Ayatana team. No more discussion, no more arguments, no explaining what Unity design goals are. We're just crying out between ourselves, and Unity developers seems to have an unwritten policy of not commenting again in this or other "Won't fix" bugs.

I would use gnome-shell right now if my graphic driver wasn't broken too. I'm too tired of this.

Saša Tomić (tomic80) wrote :

My vote also goes for #58.

Danillo (danillo) wrote :

@marcobiscaro2112: I noticed that the Ubuntu Unity plugin rotated is basically a fork, right? Well, I agree that's not something that we should strive for, and I was thinking more about the possibility of releasing a Compiz plugin that didn't need forking Unity. Is that possible?

@everyone: Something a little similar to what Marco proposed in #58 could be implemented basically with the current Unity structure at least for some cases. Go to CompizConfig Settings Manager > Window Management > Scale plugin > Shortcuts and tick the "click on the desktop to show desktop" option. Now when the scale plugin gets triggered after clicking on the launcher, another click on the application icon will minimize the windows.

However, there are two problems with this: this only happens when we have multiple instances of an application, and it will maximize all windows, not just the ones for that application. Nevertheless, if you're minimizing to see the desktop, this could be useful. If you want to use another application instead of seeing the desktop it would require another click on the launcher, but there's a bug related to this: clicking on the application icon on the launcher will maximize all windows instead of the application you want. This is bug #871801 and it already has a fix pending. It's far from ideal, but it's an option that already exists.

Maybe it would be easier if changes could be made to the Scale plugin instead of Unity, making it minimize only the scaled windows?

Danillo (danillo) wrote :

I meant "... and it will *minimize* all windows, not just the ones for that application".

Em 29-12-2011 15:07, Danillo escreveu:
> @marcobiscaro2112: I noticed that the Ubuntu Unity plugin rotated is
> basically a fork, right?
Yes. It's composed by two distinct plugins: the official one (Unity) and
the Unity Rotated.
> Well, I agree that's not something that we
> should strive for, and I was thinking more about the possibility of
> releasing a Compiz plugin that didn't need forking Unity. Is that
> possible?
Short awnser: no.

Long answer: unity is a plugin for compiz, responsible for the appmenu,
the launcher, the alt+tab switcher, etc. This means that the launcher is
just one part of unity and we cannot make a plugin that only changes
this specific part without forking all the code.

till (till-straumann) wrote :

Just another frustrated user.

If I have an application with several windows (let's say 4 terminals) running and I want to peek at them
(from an 'all windows of 1 app minimized' state) then I

1) click on launcher
2) 4 windows appear
3) I now want them all to be minimized again
4) move mouse to window 1 'minimize' button
5) click
6) move mouse to window 2 'minimize' button
7) click
8) move mouse to window 3 'minimize' button
9) click
10) move mouse to window 4 'minimize' button
11) click

There is no 'minimize all windows of a particular app' shortcut? Great. Unity really has boosted my productivity and adds some nice heat to my carpal tunnels. The designers apparently tried to invent something as sleek as osx but I guess that's not that easy after all. This is awful!

Please adopt the solution presented in comment #58. It is a lot more logical, usable, consistent etc.
This is still affecting me, and will always affect me and 182 more people.

entonjackson (aj-mysc) wrote :

I also like the solution in comment #58.

Sergei Solo (solomatkins) wrote :

Here I continue discussion about this subject, but it was rejected too. May be not forever.
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/29075/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/29215/

entonjackson (aj-mysc) wrote :

Sad.
This would have been a great plus for usability in unity.
Come on Canonical, listen to the community and to what the people want! Do you think Ubuntu will get popular this way?

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

This will be implemented as great new feature of Unity 6.0.

Come on guys, if they are rejecting, disallowing votes, they simply won't do this. Instead of begging them, just use something else. Or fork Unity.

Tom Arnold (g0tt) wrote :

Icons should be more animated and provide more features and Unity does live in a Windows/OSX world so it should take into account what already know.

quequotion (quequotion) wrote :

When is this getting fixed?

Unity needs to start making sense, fast.

Ubuntu is losing popularity and users.

What happened to the "One Hundred Papercuts" initiative?

This is a really little thing, but it could go a long way into making Unity more effective AND more popular.

I totaly agree : unity should minimize app on click when only one process is running

Dave Vree (hdave) wrote :

Hundreds of smart, launchpad account holding Ubuntu supporters are asking for this behavior to be changed.

CHANGE IT.

I've seen arrogance kill more than a few great software companies, and Canonical will be no exception.

Adam Dobbs (ajdobbs) wrote :

Another vote for minimise on icon click. I really miss this behavior. Comment #58 seems sensible.

gonemusic (gonemusic) wrote :

Another vote for minimize on icon click.

Jonathan French (ojno) wrote :

I've added an up to date branch for this. It vastly improves usability. Unity team, please reconsider this.

I definitely second this click again to minimize. Makes viewing and navigation that much easier. Its nice to click a second time when you have opened up the window by mistake and now don't want to trek the mouse cursor to find the close button.

Marek Stasiak (marecki) wrote :

Huh, it's been a year since this ticket was reported. And I still don't know why this is not solved, no arguments from the other side.

Maarten Kossen (mpkossen) wrote :

I'd love to see this behaviour as well.

Jonathan French (ojno) wrote :

The spread does *not* solve this, read their spec:

( https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1EdrlUuZvA9P8-BZufUU2KlHGjg49p9UacF4MCL0U5uA/edit )

"If the application only has one window, and does not offer a New Window option or equivalent from the Launcher (either by middle-clicking or choosing it from the right mouse button menu), then the spread is not invoked, as there are no other targets to switch to (ie. other windows or a new window). Otherwise, the desktop enters spread mode."

There is still a case where clicking on a launcher icon *does nothing*!

Robert Hrovat (robi-hipnos) wrote :

I can't believe this feature was rejected. I really hate Unity because of this. It should at least be an option to enable it!!!

shane (shane-animail) wrote :

Although it is expected behaviour in a sense that it is what many people are used to, I'm not sure that really makes it the correct or natural behaviour.

I am appreciating many changes in Unity because I find them natural, even if it is not how I am used to doing things.
I see that as an improvement.

I cannot think of a single case when using Unity that I have wanted to or needed to minimize via the launcher, even though it is what I am used to.
The minimize button is on the left so wherever the window is, I don't see that it involves any more mouse movement than moving to the launcher, in fact probably less in most cases.

If an expected behaviour is also the most natural, logical and obvious behaviour, then removing that behaviour may well cause confusion.
If an expected behaviour is simply "expected" or "used to" then I'm not sure that is a good enough reason to include the behaviour.

Robert Pollak (robert-pollak) wrote :

> Although it is expected behaviour in a sense that it is what many people are used to, I'm not sure that really makes it the correct or natural behaviour.

Yes, maybe the "minimize per launcher" use cases could be fixed by providing a "back" functionality (like the Android "back" button) that "undoes" the last window operation instead. I think that could work for me!

In the meantime, I'm using the Cinnamon UI :-/

Benjamim Gois (benjamim-gois) wrote :

That´s is a bug that Unity should fix. It´s one of the major problems i have with unity right now, i can´t switch between multiple appications with multiple windows without this feature. I really hope canonical design team rethinks it´s decision. This patch is a great advance in unity usability.

Aleve Sicofante (sicofante) wrote :

I've read today about a patch that will partially correct this bug: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/03/how-to-minimize-apps-to-the-unity-launcher-in-ubuntu-12-04/

Cas (calumlind) wrote :

@Aleve Sicofante: That is the patch attached to this bug.

If any one from Ayatana Team still reads this bug then you may want to consider that the majority of users posting replies on these news site are saying it makes sense and they want it in Ubuntu:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/03/how-to-minimize-apps-to-the-unity-launcher-in-ubuntu-12-04/
http://www.webupd8.org/2012/03/unity-with-minimize-on-click-patch.html

Majority of users do not even know about these sites.
As I posted in comment, basic users do not minimize windows, they switch them, it is easier and quicker (they do not need to remember what is under which windows and so on, they just pick what they want to use).

But I appreciate there is PPA, so power users can install patch if they do not want to get used to this paradigm.

Heimen Stoffels (vistaus) wrote :

@Pavol You will be surprised how many basic users minimize on click.

Come on Atayana. I mean, why not put this as an option at least? In CompizConfig for example. "click on focused app minimized it" It's that easy. Disabled by default with an option to enable it via Settings/CompizConfig/...

John Mills (jmills59) wrote :

Please in the interest of user choice allow the option to minimise on click even if not on by default. It is great to see that there is now a PPA that can be installed to give the functionality that 221 Ubuntu users (as a minumum) have asked for.

See:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/03/how-to-minimize-apps-to-the-unity-launcher-in-ubuntu-12-04/

ppa:ojno/unity-minimize-on-click

Ojnoid, thank you for your hard work. But Canonical was it really necessary to force someone to create this to fill the demand that is so clearly there for this feature? Your reputation is really starting to get tarnished by the lack of response to the community wants. Please show good faith and at least allow the community the option of deciding what they consider to be the appropriate action for this 'bug' within the Ubuntu configuration options.

eZFlow (breakdevize) wrote :

The only sane thing to do is to add an option. Too many valid reasons and i
will name 2:

- i often minimize apps so that people behind my back dont watch what i do
at work.

- i minimize often because i dont want to be distracted by other windows

Exactly this design failure drove me away from once so great ubuntu. Only
other dock with this behaviour i know of is osx and i hate that ubuntu
copies something this unfunctional without an alternative just like apple
does, makes me vomit over both of them.

Vishnu Rao (vishnumrao) wrote :

Another vote for minimize on icon click.

Tibi (shadow-walk) wrote :

tried to install the patch but for me its not working.. i end up with an unusable dektop (tried gnome, fallback, unity, etc, none worked).. so i had to purge the ppa and live up with this HUGE FRUSTATION that i cant nimimize a damn application because the gods of design decided so

Jonathan French (ojno) wrote :

Updated PPA package released, built on Unity stable from Precise (12.04) to fix the problems people were having. The version numbers match up such that you should just be able to update as usual. Also backported to Oneiric (11.10), in the same PPA.

https://launchpad.net/~ojno/+archive/unity-minimize-on-click

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

It's GREAT! If you additionally set "Focus prevention level" to "Off", no more windows launched in background. Behaves just like an operating system should behave.

Michal Predotka (mpredotka) wrote :

Jonathan French, many thanks for providing PPA for 11.10!

Marek Stasiak (marecki) wrote :

Jonathan French, many thanks for providing PPA for 11.10! (2)

TomasHnyk (sup) wrote :

Thanks, I am actually surprised it took so long for someone to fork Unity in this way :-) (there are more bug reports like this)

Dave Vree (hdave) wrote :

Many thanks Jonathan French for forking Unity and making it one step closer to usable.

Jonathan French (ojno) wrote :

You're all very welcome :)

But let me make it clear -- my PPA is *not* a fork, it's just a feature branch. Hopefully, the Unity devs will be able to try it out, see the usability improvement, and include it in 12.10.

Well, I think it *is* a fork. It's a different branch, with a different
feature, packaged in a PPA and not officially supported. And since it's
not a feature that will be merged[1][2][3][4][5][6], I wouldn't call
this a "feature branch".

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/1
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/19
[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/882274/comments/20
[4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/882274/comments/25
[5]
https://code.launchpad.net/~marcobiscaro2112/unity/fixes-733349/+merge/61473
[6] https://code.launchpad.net/~ojno/unity/minimize-on-click/+merge/98303

On 26-03-2012 18:45, Jonathan French wrote:
> You're all very welcome :)
>
> But let me make it clear -- my PPA is *not* a fork, it's just a feature
> branch. Hopefully, the Unity devs will be able to try it out, see the
> usability improvement, and include it in 12.10.
>

Ahmet SARI (ahmsar04) wrote :

@Jonathan French (ojno) I tried your PPA and there is a nasty bug. When I type a search term into Firefox search box and hit Alt-Enter to open the search results in a new tab Compiz crashes and leaves Unity unusable.

Michal Predotka (mpredotka) wrote :

Ahmet SARI (ahmsar04), I'm using this PPA on Ubuntu 11.10 and can't reproduce that crash you described.

Cas (calumlind) wrote :

@Ahmet I cannot reproduce either and from looking at the code changes I find it very improbable that this has anything to do with ojno's changes. In addition rather than fill this bug with essentially off-topic comments, bugs in his unity branch should be reported directly to ojno: https://launchpad.net/~ojno

Jonathan French (ojno) wrote :

@Ahmet - please double check that it definitely doesn't happen with vanilla Unity (use ppa-purge, apt-get update and dist-upgrade, then test) and if it doesn't, email me (<email address hidden>) and I'll take a look

@Marco - I see what you mean, but the word "fork" implies a certain amount of animosity, a "taking your ball and going home" scenario, which I'm trying to avoid.

I think the fork in this case is more like "let's take our the ball and
play in another place".

2012/3/27 Jonathan French <email address hidden>

>
> @Marco - I see what you mean, but the word "fork" implies a certain
> amount of animosity, a "taking your ball and going home" scenario, which
> I'm trying to avoid.
>
>

Jonathan French (ojno) wrote :

New version of the PPA released: Restores the previous behaviour when the launcher icon is clicked with the Spread open, and adds a "Minimize" item to the quicklist.

Hopefully this is more likely to be merged, since it now doesn't touch the Spread behaviour at all.

Joe Mooring (toomanypets) wrote :

@Jonathan French: Thank you very much for the unity-minimize-on-click capability. This is now Item #5 on my checklist of things-to-do after installing Ubuntu. Initially I presumed that the lack of minimization was simply a bug that would be addressed overtime; now I understand that the default behavior is per the design spec. Hopefully that will change. Thanks again.

TomasHnyk (sup) wrote :

Jonathan: will you update this to unity 5.12 for 12.04? It would be nice!

Drzorcz (drzorcz) wrote :

I agree with Tomas's appeal: it'll be great if you update your ppa, Jonathan. I got used to your solution so much, and now I cannot use it, alas. Thanks in advance!

TomasHnyk (sup) wrote :

Actually, I was mistanekn, 5.12 has not hit 12.04 yet so the version 5.10 in Jonathan's archive is uptodate as of now.

Simon Rijk (s-p-rijk) wrote :

Mark said: the minimize button is prominent, so clicking on an app's icon in the launcher will not minimize.

Ok fine, but PLEASE let there be a presentation of tiled windows of open instances of the app!

It totally agree with tekstr1der on this matter and hope that the Unity development team adopts the community request.

Cheers.

entonjackson (aj-mysc) wrote :

Or put "minimze" and "minimize all" entries into the context menu of each app...

My god! Is it so hard, to make that little changes to increase usability in a way EVERYBODY wants?!

Phillip Susi (psusi) wrote :

+1, this is crippling the usability of unity for me. I'm really trying to give it a chance but this antifeature is REALLY annoying.

TomasHnyk (sup) wrote :

Jontahan, I am on Unity 5.12 now from your archive and it does not minimize the application if it has more than two windows opened, is that intended?

Jonathan French (ojno) wrote :

Yes, I thought it was more likely to be accepted if it didn't touch Spread at all.

TomasHnyk (sup) wrote :

Oh, I see. Well, it is more confusing (at least to me) than when it minimizes after spread as well.

But anyway, why is the status wont'fix ? Should not it be Opinion ?

On Mon 14 May 2012 10:15:57 AM AST, TomasHnyk wrote:
> Oh, I see. Well, it is more confusing (at least to me) than when it
> minimizes after spread as well.
>
> But anyway, why is the status wont'fix ? Should not it be Opinion ?
>

Okay small request for those like me who want to see this functionality
land. Please stop commenting. It's never going to happen. It is however
getting annoying to get a mail about this every day. It's pointless.

TomasHnyk (sup) wrote :

You can turn off your notifications for comments.

Sojin (sojin-v) wrote :

Why the status turned to 'won't fix' ? It's a genuine and really useful feature request. IMHO, "We have a minimise button for that, it's prominent." doesn't cut really well.

Magnetizer (magnetizer) wrote :

As it seems to be pointless to engage into the discussion about this usability flaw par exellence, I use the keycombination "ALT-z" to minimize windows. It works quite nicely as my left hand will not leave the keyboard when I open windows by clicking icons on the launcher with my right hand.

The default key combination to minimize windows is "Ctrl-Alt-0" which is not possible to perform with the left hand only.

Here is how to change the key combination:

1) Open the dash
2) Type "keyboard" and start the "keyboard" application
3) Open the tab "Shortcuts"
4) On the left side select "Windows"
5) On the right side select "Minimize window"
6) Press "ALT-z" on the keyboard (or something else to your liking)
7) Close "keyboard" settings window

Now you can easily minimize the active window by pressing "ALT-z". It also works when you come from the spread view and you have several windows open of the same application. Just press "ALT-z" as often as is needed. The focus will change to the next window of that application.

Hope this workaround is helpful for some people.

As far as I know many panels/task bars like tint, cairo-dock, docky, windows panel, os x dock implement this functionality, why unity should invent an own wheel here ?

Biji (biji) wrote :

I prefer :

4) switch between opened multiple windows (raise )
5) back to 4)

than
4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows open;
5) minimize

mindbox (mindbox) wrote :

Many thanks to @Jonathan French and all the people here contributing to improve this "patch". I 'm so used to the old (and much more useful) behavior that I was clicking at least a dozen times a day over the icons trying to minimize. You know how frustrating it was. I join those hoping this feature will be included in following releases! Can't see a reason not to. Even if you're a new user without old habits it improves usability a lot anyway.

Sayem (afm-sayem) wrote :

This feature should land in Unity. At least, there should be an option somewhere to turn this on. While all the launchers behave one way and Unity launcher the other, there's only one word that comes to my mind.

Internet Explorer.

Ryan Press (ryan-nryiuoo) wrote :

As a recent convert from Windows 7, this issue was the first thing I noticed. Initially I thought, "This is Linux, I'm sure there's an option for that!" But unfortunately it seems not. Please make this an option so I can have this feature.

It certainly will help with Bug #1, at least in my eyes.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

Man (aldpn) wrote :

This bug also affects me !
Cannonical should add an option to enable "minimize on click on launcher icon" and disable it by default .. but just give us (users who like/need it ) the opportunity to enable it !
Hope Cannonical will listen community's desires !!

Dinin (dinin2) wrote :

 "Your wish is our command". If so, then please add this feature, or make it an extra installable plugin. Please Canonical listen to your users!!

Dvanzo (danielvanzo) wrote :

Come on Cannonical!, please at least make this functionality optional!

entonjackson (aj-mysc) wrote :

The problem is the spreading of the windows when clicking twice on an icon. This feature btw i don't like anyway.
I would rather like to have Aero-like preview Thumbnails from which i can choose to bring one to the front or close etc.
Then we wouldn't have complications with the spread feature, which isn't so efficient anyway.

xpt (xpt1) wrote :

i lost minimeze on click and dodge windows in ubuntu 12.04 and now the change to 12.10 does not suit me, because it has the same problem!!!!

please change it!!!

Jarosław Guza (jarekj83-4) wrote :

i think one click on a app in launcher should minimize / maximize windows !
Mark come on, and do it.

Jeffrey Zhang (jeffrey4l) wrote :

I prefer this feature too. Plz add it or add the option to enable it.

This feature is clearly missing from my point of view. Please add an option to enable it!

Aaron Johnson (acjohnson) wrote :

I love Unity but only unity-revamped on 12.04 is usable to me. Why can't this be an optional feature that you can simply enable with a check box? If you Canonical guys don't want it to function this way out of the box then that is fine, but why don't we get a choice on how we think it should function? It's not like minimize on click is counter intuitive... It's what we are already used to on litterally every single OS out there including Ubuntu until you guys took that ability away from us...

Saurabh Gupta (bhaismachine) wrote :

Guys atleast add an option to enable it. Please.

_dan_ (dan-void) wrote :

The lack of minimizing from the launcher is extremely annoying and disrupting to my workflow to the point i am considering moving away from unity.

dinanipedro (dinanipedro) wrote :

return unity revamped ppa support for 12.10

wtf? it should not be an issue at all..

Flavio Fernandez (flafer77) wrote :

Why Cannonical do not listen their old users??

eZFlow (breakdevize) wrote :

Cos they think they know better then millions of veteran users.. also they
like to be an osx look alike and copy over even the cumbersome stuff like
this.
On Dec 7, 2012 2:50 PM, "Flavio Fernandez" <email address hidden> wrote:

> Why Cannonical do not listen their old users??
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in “unity” package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Natty (Alpha 3 + daily builds) is the possibility to
> click on the app. icon on the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of
> that application, not only to launch/restore it.
> mlaverdiere's futher addition:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions
>

mindbox (mindbox) wrote :

This bug (although They don't consider it this way) together with the privacy concern in 12.11 forces me to move from Ubuntu to Mint.

I refused to change before since I considered Mint just an unnecessary and even a harmful fork, but I don't like the way Canonical is treating its users lately. It's a pity.

mehmet (mehmet-nrl) wrote :

Please add this option to the unity.

Gannin (spacesword) wrote :

We really need to have the ability to click on the launcher icon to minimize. It's far faster and easier than trying to click the little minimize button that's tucked between the other two. Click to launch, then click to minimize or restore from a minimized state.

Max Oropeza (moropeza28) wrote :

The option to enable it would be great. I'm so tired of missing the stupid minimize button and exiting my windows. A one click to minimize on the launcher is what we need and it makes total sense!

Jarosław Salski (jsalski) wrote :

Missing this functionality is very annoying, please don't tell me that there is only one correct way to use Unity.

Thomas (t-hartwig) wrote :

***Please***

This is so annoying that it makes me reconsider to go to Linux Mint.

Jack Yu (jackyu) wrote :

It takes me more than one hour to go ghrough these comments. What's a pity! My friends and I also think it sould add a minimize action on launcher....

P G Lagasse (pglagasse) wrote :

I also think that some sort of minimize on click should be an option, even if it is not the default setting. This is a common and useful option elsewhere, allowing a user to raise or unminimize a program window and then dismiss it with two mouse clicks and no repositioning of the mouse. It seems like nothing could be simpler.

Konstantinos (k0nstant1n0s) wrote :

minimize on click
+1

Dani Moncayo (dmoncayo) wrote :

I can't believe that the Unity maintainers haven't still, at least, made this behavior customizable. It it obvious that many people (including me) are not satisfied with the current behavior. Unbelievable...

Sayem (afm-sayem) wrote :

This looks personal.
"You people mocked Unity now see what we do to you! Bwahahahaha! Go fetch the minimize button! Bwahahahaha!"

cshipley (csgatekeeper) wrote :

Please, make this cutomizable! The problem is I don't want to have to go one place to activate a window, then find another smaller place to minimize it. Please make this change!

mindracer (dsartoros) wrote :

Please review this "won't fix", i hope its not for political reasons.

Especially on a touch screen PC, using the TINY minimize button on a high resolution screen instead of the always present launcher icon to minimize is ridiculous.

I've been showing off Ubuntu to Windows Users who are open to converting to Ubuntu and this is the major issue for all of them (major enough for me to come write about it here after searching the forums)

Thank you for listening

It's baffling that this hasn't been fixed yet.

Tigran Gabrielyan (tigrangab) wrote :

+1

Say I'm writing a paper in LibreOffice Writer, and I click on firefox icon to focus the window so I can quickly read some content off a webpage. Now I want to minimize Firefox to give focus back to Writer.

What do I have to do now? Move my mouse back to Writer icon or Minimize window icon.
Or, if this ever gets implemented, simply click again without even moving the mouse.
This behavior is what is expected by most people.

I patched untiy myself, for the latest version in 13.04, and I'm attaching the diff if anyone else wants to use it (not very well tested, but seems to work well enough).

Please add this functionality.

Aaron Johnson (acjohnson) wrote :

Tigran-

I tried your patch and it seems to work perfectly. The only thing it is missing now is the Minimize option when you right click an icon on the launcher. The old patched version of "Unity Revamped" had that feature so I bet it is possible to add it to unity 6.12.

Either way it's great to finally use Unity on Raring the way it is supposed to be used. Thank you very much!

description: updated
Cas (calumlind) wrote :

@Jakob Changing the description will not stop people posting their annoyance that the Ayatana design team thinks it knows what's best for the user and completely ignores the overwhelming disquiet about the issue.

Using a PPA is all fine and well but two developers have tried that but constantly chasing Unity updates was clearly too much effort and are no longer maintained. The latest one is detailed here: http://www.webupd8.org/2013/01/unity-revamped-ppa-is-back-for-ubuntu.html

TomasHnyk (sup) wrote :

As it has been over a year since it was rejected last and I doubt that anyone from unity list reads it, one of the ways to raise it again would be to post to unity mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
After all, opinions can change over time. And this should at least be marked as "opinion" and not "wontfix", if I understand those labels correctly.

@Cas: The thing is, this is the situation and I think it should be honestly stated. Posting here is not going to make a difference. This bug is not even showing up in the list if you sort by heat even though it would be #2 ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bugs?orderby=-heat&start=0 ).

So, we have to try something else (posting to unity-design could be a good idea) or fix it up ourselves.

Magnes (magnesus2) wrote :

Maybe opening a new bug with well thought out description would help make this issue heard?

TomasHnyk (sup) wrote :

That would just get marked as duplicate of this one (the youngest duplicate is just over a month old).

John Kuang (xiphosurus) wrote :

http://www.webupd8.org/2013/03/unity-tweak-tool-available-in-ubuntu.html

Could the dev of Unity Tweak Tool add this feature easily?

TomasHnyk (sup) wrote :

No, it requires recompiling unity, if I am not mistaken.

John Kuang (xiphosurus) wrote :

TomasHynk, you are right. The dev of Unity Tweak Tool just replied to me that he can't since its not supported in unity (without recompiling unity) and he also doesn't like/want this feature. :(

Marek Stasiak (marecki) wrote :

>and he also doesn't like/want this feature. :(

wat
I thought everyone wants that. Sad.
I got used to actual situation but still this is a huge hole in unity usability imo

Pavel Podkorytov (tierpod) wrote :

We really want this feature! This will make unity usability better!

My suggestion was just marked as a duplicate:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/1170466

You know, the development team really ought to at least consider minimizing when these three conditions are the case:
1) The launcher's application is already open
2) The launcher's application is already focused
3) The application has only one window instance.

Currently, when you click the launcher (in the state above), it does NOTHING!

So why not add Toggle-Minimize feature here? At least do this, pleaaaaaase?

tags: added: raring

3) Clicking a launcher whose application is:
   a) "already launched"
   b) "already has focus"
SHOULD MINIMIZE THAT APPLICATION'S WINDOW.

I NEED THIS!!!

I think because there's this "expose"-like feature that happens when you click on the icon when there's two of the same Window (2 open Firefox windows for example), this won't happen anytime soon, if at all. If there's only one Window, however, then I wouldn't mind the minimize feature.

slcpunk (sckemp1) wrote :

Its stuff like this that makes me want to go back to Mint or use Cinnamon instead of Unity. I can't see the justification for not making the change. I thought I would give 13.04 a shot ... but Ubuntu seems confused about what they are doing. ( desktop not a priority any more )

If all nay-sayers would just focus on requirement #3 in comment number #335 (not #336). I believe this is the essence. Currently, when that particular requirement is true, clicking the launcher does NOTHING!

So why not toggle-minimized here? After all, clicking does absolutely nothing. AND it doesn't conflict the SPREAD behavior, because *only one window is open*.

And, if someone clicks it, and therefore minimizes it, it is absolutely intuitive to click it again to "bring it back" (its a behavior that goes all the way back to Windows 95 and it was as good idea then as it is now).

Chris Hawkins (chawkinsuf) wrote :

This is pretty ridiculous. I am trying out unity again in 13.04 from kde and I don't quite know what to say. I am considering switching back because of this. I can see having some debate if there are multiple windows open, but there should be none when there is only a single window. The button on the launcher in this case is useless when the window is active. I seriously thought I was having trouble with my mouse when I first noticed this "feature".

DiQ (dik23) wrote :

I'd like to add my vote for this, it seems totally illogical that a second click on the icon would not minimise the application. Won't Fix simply is not good enough.

I can't stand it when everyone wants a change like this, and they won't do it.

quequotion (quequotion) wrote :

I added cononical-design to the report because their design is wrong.

There are several very good suggestions in the comments here about how to do it right.

Specificallly, #335 sounds very minimal, unobtrusive, easy to implement, and logical.

I've seen posts against implementation from only two people and their reasons are as wrong as the design.

1. It doesn't matter what the original plan for Unity is or was. The community wants and needs this feature. If they don't get it, they'll either give up on Unity and go somewhere else--away from Ubuntu most likely--or, though unlikely, someone will eventually fork Unity, implement it themselves and users will go there. This is a rediculously small thing to fracture the community over.

2. Mark Shuttleworth's word should not be the alpha and omega of the discussion. He's in charge of Canonical, and he's contributed a great deal to the cause, but he's wrong on this one. This bug is over two years old and overwhelmingly filled with comments begging for implementation of this feature. The time to reconsider your opinion is long past, Mark.

Jarosław Guza (jarekj83-4) wrote :

we want it! its normal that when u click on app on launcher it should unminimize!

Corasaaa (francesco-corazza) wrote :

We want it!!!
#335 sounds very minimal, unobtrusive, easy to implement, and logical.

Rikard Johansson (rikard-jo) wrote :

Imo this goes against the nature of the workflow with Unity. No need to minimize applications just use more workspaces, less clutter that way. But never the less, it should be up to the end-user to deciede his/her workflow.

I came here after seeing this bug resurface in a Google+ Community post.

I agree with #346 above: Unity just doesn't work that way, and is not supposed to work that way. I personally never used this requested functionality even on Windows; the minimize button is a much more obvious way to handle that. Advanced users bothered by this can just switch to another DE that they can then customize to their liking. Contrary to what some very vocal people above and elsewhere have said, not everyone wants this on their desktop.

The launcher icon is supposed to be for launching and spreading applications. Perhaps a better solution would be to click the icon of an already-running application to activate the spread, but include a couple overlaid dash-style buttons in the background to minimize all windows or the currently selected window. I'm not a designer, so I have no idea how good this actually would be in practice, but IMHO it would be a pretty good compromise and more usable to me than the suggested alternative here.

Just adding my 2 cents.

entonjackson (aj-mysc) wrote :

By the way. Is there a topic in launchpad that is more controversal than this one? I don't think so.
Maybe it would be a good decision by Canonical to react appropriately before someone's starting some kind of shitstorm...

Thomas (t-hartwig) wrote :

Shitstorm is already here. ;-)
If it is so controversial, why not make it optional by configuration. It looks like it is such a small fix as already suggested multiple times. Whoever might be capable should summarize it once again probably.

Please, you implement it. Is a very comfortable feature!

Dave Vree (hdave) wrote :

If they Unity designers said "The launcher is only for launching" -- I might disagree, but I'd understand. It would be viewed like the list of "apps" in Android or iOS.

But when you say the launcher is "for launching and spreading applications" -- and then it supports quicklists..then the message is "The launcher is for launching and controlling application windows."

So then allow us to minimize a window from the launcher when there is only one application window open. Especially since "spread" does not do anything when there is one window open....at which point clicking the button does nothing...which is counter-intuitive.

Here's me training my wife on this about 4 months ago:

me: Here is a button. It's always right there.
my wife: Great!

me: It is always enabled.
my wife: Thats easy.

me: When you click on it, something useful happens....
my wife: I get it!

me: Unless the application associated with the button is currently running and has one and only one window open on the current workspace -- in which case clicking on the enabled button will do nothing and provide you with no feedback whatsoever so that you think your computer might by locked up or your mouse button broke...but its not...everything is just fine...just don't do that.
my wife: you computer guys suck...

przekop (przekop) wrote :

Is there any chance to add minimize to right click menu or maybe alt + left click could do it?

Adam Wojtowicz (astenu) wrote :

I fully agree with Dave's use case from #351.

I like "spread" behavior that acts when multiple windows are open. In work I use Windows 7 and it has similar behavior (opens mini list) but I prefer how Unity works [1]. But Windows 7 allows me to minimize the window if it's only one and this is really comfortable. It serves double purpose:
 - allows you to acutally minimize the window to clear the desktop,
 - if I get lost in open windows allows me to quickly locate the window (during the minimizing transition) and I can easily re-click the same icon to have it open and activated, this sort of duplicates what the "spread" action allows me to do in a consistent manner.

Long story short: IMO minimizing a single active window with a click in the laucher is a desirable behavior for me and is consistent with other dash functions.

[1] The small improvement would be adding bigger letered titles to windows minatures in "spead" for easier recognition but that's off-topic here.

I've added the Unity-Tweak-Tool project to this bug report. Maybe they can scratch this itch.

I suggest focusing on post #335.

You know, we can stop commenting on this bug as it will never be fixed. Use another desktop environment. (That's what I'm doing).

Unity Tweak Tool can't fix it, because it requires upstream work which Canonical driven devs will continually reject.

tags: added: saucy
Thomas (t-hartwig) wrote :

Roland, may I ask which environment you have chosen?

(It is sad how little the attention of the developers is in this. Is it arrogance? The community has a wish but no one cares.)

Sam Hewitt (snwh) wrote :

We cannot "scratch this itch" in Unity Tweak Tool, for all the re-reiterated reasons above.

Changed in unity-tweak-tool:
status: New → Won't Fix
assignee: nobody → Sam Hewitt (snwh)

@Thomas, I use KDE right now (because I'm on Ubuntu 13.10 so my usual DE won't work). Otherwise I use Pantheon (from the elementary OS project).

Sometimes I also use Gnome Classic, XFCE, and Enlightenment from time to time.

Phil Hord (phil-phord) wrote :

@Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)

The minimize button is not "prominent" at all! In fact, it's invisible if the application is maximized.

More to the point, though: if I clicked a launcher button for an open window accidentally and I now want that window to go away again, it's much easier to just click that launcher button again -- conveniently near the mouse I just clicked it with -- rather than run off to whichever screen the window is on so I can find its minimize button, which may or may not be visible and/or accessible.

Sam Lesher (samlesher) wrote :

Please reconsider adding this feature. It is the biggest factor keeping me from embracing Unity as my daily desktop environment.

You know, if they could at least do post #335, it would make up a lot for the inconveniences of the title bar being integrated into the top-panel.

Due to "Title Bar Integrated in top-panel", these additional steps are required to minimize and application (using the mouse):
1) Click on application window you want to minimize
2) Hover your mouse all the way to the top-left panel (that doesn't show you a minimize button until you hover over it)
3) Click a very tiny red circle with a "X" (why do precise an effort for my tastes)

Now, if they'd grant post #335, you could click on a very blunt fat icon (require less precise effort) that's
1) Visible even if the application doesn't have focus.
2) All three of the steps listed above could be achieved with less mouse movement:
     a. You don't have to mouse to the unfocused window and click it to make it gain focus
     b. If the window you are trying to minimize doesn't have focus, you have one location that both
          i. Gives it focus
         ii. Minimizes it

This is so clear for everyone to see. But someone (in control), at this point, is too proud to admit that this is indeed a clear ENHANCEMENT. Post #335 could be implemented in about 15 minutes and put this bug to rest once and for all.

And absolute no one would complain about this enhancement to the degree that everyone here is complaining about the enhancement not being there!

Derek White (d-man97) wrote :

M.S.: "no, clicking on the icon will not minimise the app. We have a minimise button for that, it's prominent."

I agree with #361, it is NOT prominent. This is a terrible reason to break desktop functionality that has existed for over a dozen years. Get your head out of your ass M.S.

Maga Laan (magalaan) wrote :

Designers seem to have declared war on minimizing. Elementary OS and Gnome even removed the minimize-button. Many want to make the PC more like Android and eliminate the difference between close and minimize. After close the state is preserved in memory for quick reopen. We see that music apps keep on playing when closed.

I have nothing against that. But the PC differs form a phone and tablet because it can show many windows in the same time. What I find annoying is that when I open a new app, I have to hide the other window manually not to have a cluttered interface. I find it distracting when pieces of other windows are sticking out.

I would want to suggest a more profound solution: I call it AUTOMINIMIZE

=============================================================================
Whenever an app is opened hide all other visible windows automatically!
Of course this is not always wanted, and that is why I suggest to change the minimize app in a pin-app to prevent it from hiding. I would also like this behaviour when changing apps with alt-tab or dock.
=============================================================================

Only show the apps that is called. To make it perfect you could make some apps pinned by default. This way we do not need to minimize any more and this would also work fine on a mobile devices as well. Witch is important as Ubuntu is pursuing to , create a unified interface for mobile devices and desktops.

Maga Laan (magalaan) wrote :

Correction: i meand minimize-button and pin-button in stead of app.

quequotion (quequotion) wrote :

Following the overwhelming trend of comments in this report an elsewhere, the design needs to be changed. I don't see how anything less will ever end this controversy or this discussion.

Changed in canonical-design:
status: New → Confirmed
eZFlow (breakdevize) wrote :

About fkn time!

tags: added: trusty
quequotion (quequotion) wrote :

>>eZFlow

Unfortunately, I don't have any authority whatsoever to implement policy here or elsewhere.
Even more unfortunate is that I lack the programming skill to fork Unity and implement this on my own.

We'll have to wait and see if someone with both the authority and the skill to resolve this issue comes along.

Until then, I've completely given up on Unity as a desktop environment. I've switched to Pantheon, because the people working on it seem to think "usability" is among the primary virtues of a good interface.

pcworld (pcworld) wrote :

Dirty port of Jonathan French's patch to 13.10: https://gist.github.com/pcworld/8086599
Only ported the case of one window in a group though.

Adolfo Jayme (fitojb) on 2014-01-02
Changed in canonical-design:
status: Confirmed → Invalid

Invalid??? Here we go again!

The heat of this bug report is 1896. Therefore, not invalid.

Ruslan (ruslan-uvashev) wrote :

almost 3 years thread...
Please add minimizing upon clicking on application icon.
Or at least add option in system settings that user could decide what he wants.

pcworld (pcworld) wrote :

> Or at least add option in system settings that user could decide what he wants.
Canonical knows what you want. You don't. Okay?
(quoted from http://www.webupd8.org/2012/03/unity-with-minimize-on-click-patch.html#comment-472080417)

Mark Shuttleworth is a dick. Linus Torvalds IS Linux, Richard Stallman IS GNU, Mark Shuttleworth IS a dick. Clicking on a focus's icon should minimize it. Period. If if were not so, no one would be scratching their head wondering why some dumbass is telling us how prominent the minimize button is (which is, for some reason, on the opposite site of the window header from where it's always been) Sometimes you should let people have what they want instead of only getting what you like Mark.

Dave Vree (hdave) wrote :

Not sure the name calling is helpful.

That said, if I had 465 of my regular customers telling me to make a tweak to my product. I'd change it.

eZFlow (breakdevize) wrote :

The number of people who would like to choose how this works is in the
thousands. Look at the bug heat, they just ignore it. Any firm that treats
their customers like this should die a slow and painful death.

Unity on desktop, broken by design just like win 8. MS however does respond
to the critics and promises to improve and return the start menu. Makes me
detest canonical even more.

On Jan 28, 2014 4:01 PM, "Dave Vree" <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Not sure the name calling is helpful.
>
> That said, if I had 465 of my regular customers telling me to make a
> tweak to my product. I'd change it.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Obsolete project please ignore:
> Invalid
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Unity Tweak Tool:
> Won't Fix
> Status in "unity" package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Unity is the possibility to click on the app. icon on
the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of that application, not
only to launch/restore it.
> mlaverdiere's futher addition:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> Note that this bug has over 300 comments and several working but
> rejected patches. This means that this feature probably will never
> land in official Unity! So if you want it, you have to use a patched
> version of Unity.
>
> There is a working patch for 13.04 ( from comment #322,
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-
> design/+bug/733349/+attachment/3573380/+files/minimize.patch ).
> Somebody should set up a PPA (and note it here) to make it easy to
> install the patched version.
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions

Matthew Orres (matthew-orres) wrote :

I agree name-calling is not helpful, but I'd like to add myself to the ever-increasing number of folks who wish this to change.

If Shuttleworth and/or Ubuntu developers are marking this as "wont-fix" just to make sure they're not taking design cues from anything Windows-related as a pride thing, I'd say that is a misguided thought to say the least. But, out of respect for the Ubuntu team I will assume they are merely waiting for more feedback from the community.

So, here it is. It's an entirely helpful UI action that can be added relatively easily (and right now, nothing happens once a window has been maximized, so clicking-to-minimize doesn't subtract anything does it?) and helps quite a few folks (myself included).

Dimitri John Ledkov (xnox) wrote :

Clicking on the icon exposes apps' windows. Please, do not change that! It's uber useful! When i click on it, i want to focus that app not make it disappear into oblivion!

The Fiddler (stapostol) wrote :

One click to show the window picker. A second click to minimize all
windows. Rince and repeat.

Not so difficult, is it?

2014-02-04 Dimitri John Ledkov <email address hidden>:

> Clicking on the icon exposes apps' windows. Please, do not change that!
> It's uber useful! When i click on it, i want to focus that app not make
> it disappear into oblivion!
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Obsolete project please ignore:
> Invalid
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Unity Tweak Tool:
> Won't Fix
> Status in "unity" package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Unity is the possibility to click on the app. icon on
> the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of that application, not
> only to launch/restore it.
> mlaverdiere's futher addition:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> Note that this bug has over 300 comments and several working but
> rejected patches. This means that this feature probably will never
> land in official Unity! So if you want it, you have to use a patched
> version of Unity.
>
> There is a working patch for 13.04 ( from comment #322,
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-
> design/+bug/733349/+attachment/3573380/+files/minimize.patch ).
> Somebody should set up a PPA (and note it here) to make it easy to
> install the patched version.
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions
>

Benjamin Geese (ben-8409) wrote :

I know this is rather annoying as everybody seems to see the need to comment on this while this issue has been decided about two years ago.

Saying that, i join this mess of noisy comments because i feel on view is rather underrepresented in this thread:
The one of a happy user!

I am perfectly happy with the current behaviour have never missed the minimized feature. I fact it might disturb my workflow.

And even more so: I have never be so happy with a stable and functional desktop environment on linux as i am with unity. I think there have been some very good design decision made and, this time, we should just trust those people who decided this is a opinion or won't fix and leave it at this.

pcworld (pcworld) wrote :

> I think there have been some very good design decision made and, this time, we should just trust those people who decided this is a opinion or won't fix and leave it at this

Yeah I will trust them that they know better what I want than I do.
Seriously, why is "customizability" becoming a foreign word to people?

So you think we should just ignore those who think it was a bad decision
(including myself) and don't provide any option to satisfy those who wish
there was an option to minimize?

http://about.me/rolandixor/

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Benjamin Geese
<email address hidden>wrote:

> I know this is rather annoying as everybody seems to see the need to
> comment on this while this issue has been decided about two years ago.
>
> Saying that, i join this mess of noisy comments because i feel on view is
> rather underrepresented in this thread:
> The one of a happy user!
>
> I am perfectly happy with the current behaviour have never missed the
> minimized feature. I fact it might disturb my workflow.
>
> And even more so: I have never be so happy with a stable and functional
> desktop environment on linux as i am with unity. I think there have been
> some very good design decision made and, this time, we should just trust
> those people who decided this is a opinion or won't fix and leave it at
> this.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733349
>
> Title:
> Minimize Application's Windows upon clicking its Launcher Icon
>
> Status in Ayatana Design:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Obsolete project please ignore:
> Invalid
> Status in Unity:
> Won't Fix
> Status in Unity Tweak Tool:
> Won't Fix
> Status in "unity" package in Ubuntu:
> Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> What I do miss in Unity is the possibility to click on the app. icon on
> the Unity launcher bar to minimize all windows of that application, not
> only to launch/restore it.
> mlaverdiere's futher addition:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/2
>
> My suggestion would be to modify the interaction-design/process like
> this (*=my modification proposal/2 cents!):
>
> 1) start it, if it hasn't been started yet;
> *2) restore it, if it is minimized;
> *3) focus the app, if it's started, not minimized and has not the focus
> yet;
> 4) spread windows (of app), if app is focused and has multiple windows
> open;
> *5) minimize it if it is in spread-mode (see 4).
>
> Note that this bug has over 300 comments and several working but
> rejected patches. This means that this feature probably will never
> land in official Unity! So if you want it, you have to use a patched
> version of Unity.
>
> There is a working patch for 13.04 ( from comment #322,
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-
> design/+bug/733349/+attachment/3573380/+files/minimize.patch ).
> Somebody should set up a PPA (and note it here) to make it easy to
> install the patched version.
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/+subscriptions
>

mehmet.nural (zxcq14) wrote :

https://launchpad.net/~zxcq14/+archive/minimize-unity-7
This patch works also with ubuntu 14.04 ubuntu unity.
I've created a ppa for 14.04 trusty but new versions of packages released very quickly.
I can update packages every week.

Mr. T (mistert) wrote :

Please add minimize functionality to the launcher (as an option). Most people intuitively expect that it can be used for minimizing too.

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!

Ayatana design team, development team, whoever is in charge of overseeing this subject!

I beg of you, in the nicest way i can possibly ask, please fix this issue. This single issue is the bane of my existence, i cant seem to adjust but i was able too in 12.04 BECAUSE it had this feature. This was the key feature that made me turn away from windows and even mac because it was a complete system, it had all the functionality that i needed to be very very productive. I EVEN HAD ONE OF MY COLLEGE PROFESSORS TRY THIS OUT, EVEN HE SAID IT WAS AMAZING! but now this feature is gone and i find Ubuntu clunky and hard to use because of all the screen clutter that exists. Like the bug description says, that design would be perfect, but if that is too hard to implement, at least give us the benefit of the doubt by just adding this feature to single windows instead of a window stack. I can try to live with this and id be more than happy to return to Ubuntu.

This shouldn't be hard to do since i had this implemented on a 13.04 install but it was buggy cause unity didn't agree with this modification so ultimately it was unusable but regardless this feature would make 14.04 perfect. I know i speak for a lot of people when i say that this would be ideal in terms of functionality. I already feel that unity is nice in that it offers a different desktop experience but one that is well thought out in terms of functionality, however this one simple issue, to me, has caused its use to be "difficult" even new users find it hard to use because they normally come from windows and mac and say why doesn't the launcher minimize my app, that doesn't make any sense! Then they tell me they don't like it and want to go back to windows, myself included.

So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! I will join a design team if i have to, i will gladly contribute to this cause, i am a computer science graduate so i know i can at least be of some assistance.

Also kudos on the integrated menu, i was amazed by that cause i didn't think there was a way to make it better, but you continue to amaze. Now if we can just get this one little tiny thing in there it'd be PERFECT!

Thank you Ubuntu team for all of your hard work in designing probably THE nicest desktop environment in the world, and to make it even better, its free! for this i thank you!

Neptilo (neptilo) wrote :

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Daniel Moore <email address hidden>wrote:

> i cant seem to
>
> adjust but i was able too in 12.04 BECAUSE it had this feature.

You must be kidding, right?

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

Absolutely not, this feature was vital to my work flow. In fact it was to nearly half the user base for Ubuntu.

Phillip Susi (psusi) wrote :

You are confused Daniel; this feature never existed in Unity, which is why this bug requested it a full year before 12.04 came out.

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

I hate to be the one who argues, especially on such a professional forum over something that doesn't help the topic at hand. This feature was available in 12.04, either by users or by the Ubuntu team themselves, i'm not sure of which. What i do know is that this feature was a welcomed addition to the user experience. Also you think i'm not aware of this issue being opened for so long. Its because I have basically been waiting from the beginning for the Ubuntu team to fix this mistake.

Next time you get on to tell someone their wrong because you just want to sound smart, or whatever your problem is. Be it trolling or whatever, please refrain from posting anything that doesn't help this issue, this is a bug report and discussion about the topic of adding the minimize on launcher click feature to Ubuntu, so if your not gonna be of any help, then stay off the forum. :)

best regards

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

Amazing, i was just looking through the comments and found that you Phillip posted something ABOUT the topic even if it was just one little thing, i take back my previous comment, however I will explain that just posting one little thing, isn't going to make much of a difference. This very reason is why we need to talk more about the relevance of this feature rather than just complain about it.

best regards

pcworld (pcworld) wrote :

> This feature was available in 12.04, either by users

And this feature is still available "by users" for at least >= 12.04, and given that your first comment starts with "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!", it doesn't sound like your posts are of any help here as you say in "doesn't help this issue".
Also, you got something wrong there, this is not supposed to be a "forum" where anyone posts his/her useless opinions, this is supposed to be a *bug tracker*.
Though commenting here won't have any effect on the official versions of Ubuntu anyway, Canonical has decided it neither likes the proposed feature nor does it like customization.

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

Forgive me for starting the comments in such a way, I am simply tired of seeing the Ubuntu team make poor choices in terms of functionality. Some can be good and some can be bad but unfortunately right now the bad out weigh the good.

> And this feature is still available "by users" for at least >= 12.04, and given that your first comment starts with "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!", it doesn't sound like your posts are of any help here as you say in "doesn't help this issue".

Please direct me towards a PPA that i can install to allow this feature for 13.10 or 14.04, that is if you can which i highly doubt is possible without having to build unity from scratch.

> Also, you got something wrong there, this is not supposed to be a "forum" where anyone posts his/her useless opinions, this is supposed to be a *bug tracker*.

Honestly i don't really care what its called. The point of the matter is to comment on the situation and make it a bigger deal. I know that the Ubuntu team has decided that they will not fix this issue but if we continue to heat this argument then maybe that will change, but sitting here complaining about how other people are wrong isn't helping anything.

The point of this discussion is to help the Ubuntu team understand what we find is wrong with the current functionality and how they can go about fixing it.

> Though commenting here won't have any effect on the official versions of Ubuntu anyway, Canonical has decided it neither likes the proposed feature nor does it like customization.

I cannot help but feel you are missing the point of this conversation entirely. If there is a problem and no one talks about it or makes any comments about how there is something wrong, does that problem ever get fixed? NO!

Please add reason and persuasion to your comments and MAYBE the Ubuntu team will see this and decide to attempt a fix.

best regards

Phillip Susi (psusi) wrote :

Reason and persuasion can be found in several comments here. Your comments on the other hand lack any, so you should take your own advice rather than drown out those comments that add something to the discussion.

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

lol that is a good phrase, you should take your own advice because you sure haven't added anything to the discussion except your own ignorance of the matter :)

congrats on proving my point

best regards lmao

Neptilo (neptilo) wrote :

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Daniel Moore <email address hidden>wrote:

> Please direct me towards a PPA that i can install to allow this feature
> for 13.10 or 14.04, that is if you can which i highly doubt is possible
> without having to build unity from scratch.

Have you tried mnrl's PPA at comment
#382<https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/733349/comments/382>
?

As for users like me who wanted to keep 12.04 until the next LTS comes out,
I could only get this feature to work following the instructions of this
very well explained post:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2093170&page=2&p=12407469#post12407469
and
replacing the version numbers by the more recent ones. Yes, it is quite a
tedious method, and it installs lots of other features along with it. But I
found that was worth it.

I hope it helps.

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

Thanks for the help Neptilo, i tried the first fix but no luck, im not sure why but i got error after i upgraded to 14.04 so that might have had something to do with it.

As for the second fix, im gonna work on that tonight and see. If i could get this feature back id gladly go back to 12.04 but im worried that since they have updated 12.04 to 12.04.4 then it may not work. Who knows, cant hurt to try.

Thank you for your help it was much appreciated

mehmet.nural (zxcq14) wrote :

Daniel I've add packages for 12.04 to that ppa using unity revamped patch. https://launchpad.net/~zxcq14/+archive/minimize-unity-7 So you can use unity revamped without compliation with last version of unity. I'm going to check package versions every week and keep it updated.

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

Thank you for all the help and especially thank you for this fix mnrl. But I cant seem to get it to work, ive tested out various way of adding this ppa and applying the fix but i keep getting duplicate ppa error and it doesn't work, now it keeps wanting me to restart Ubuntu to apply changes, i do and then it says to restart again. If there is a guide somewhere for the exact steps to take when doing this then that would be great, im sure the problem is on my part i just have no idea what to do to fix it :(

mehmet.nural (zxcq14) wrote :

Daniel, Are you using 12.04? you must add ppa like that:
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:zxcq14/minimize-unity-7
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get upgrade
And packages should be updated. Maybe there is a problem with your package system like broken depencies.
Run top three command above and put the errors in your terminal output in a text file, then attach here.

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

Ok i ran those commands and i ended up getting a similar error just like before. I attached the text file with the comment.

Daniel Moore (danielmoore73) wrote :

Oh and i forgot to mention, i am running ubuntu 12.04, also i am still currently working to figure this issue out but nothing so far, another thing is that im not sure of that file was uploaded so if it wasnt let me know and ill post it in the next comment.

best regards

mehmet.nural (zxcq14) wrote :

Daniel, there is no attachment in your comment, maybe it wasn't uploaded.
Here is not a forum, so it's not right to talking about only my ppa.
Please e-mail me your terminal outputs. I can help you via e-mail.

Comment #335 should remain the focus of this post I'd like to remind.

Ubuntu 14.04 is great.

The dash is fine for type-launching an application, but not good for surveying the applications you got. However, the classicmenu-indicator package addresses this shortcoming.

Now, in 14.04, you can set window's menus to be in the title bar of each window, instead of that mac-like crap on the top panel. This is huge preference addition for me in 14.04.

I love the Unity Launcher (task bar).

My only remaining gripe with Unity is this bug of not implementing what's described in post #335.

Ok folks, I know this is loooong overdue, but we are going to put in as an unsupported option to allow clicking the Launcher icon of single windowed apps and minimize that window:)

By unsupported, I mean that functionality is "as-is" and no more tweaks or enhancements to it.

Thanks for everyone's patience and comments on your desire for this. It's good to see passion in the Community.

Changed in unity:
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
status: Won't Fix → In Progress
Changed in unity (Ubuntu):
status: Won't Fix → In Progress
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Changed in unity:
assignee: nobody → Christopher Townsend (townsend)
Changed in unity (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → Christopher Townsend (townsend)
Changed in unity:
milestone: none → 7.2.0

The attachment "Allows for minimizing windows from the launcher on Unity 2D" seems to be a patch. If it isn't, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are a member of the ~ubuntu-reviewers, unsubscribe the team.

[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by ~brian-murray, for any issues please contact him.]

tags: added: patch

@townsend: and will this land for Trusty? The Feature Freeze and UI Freeze has passed already...

mlaverdiere (mlaverdiere) wrote :

As the original reporter of this "bug", I guess that all I have to say is thanks for finally acting on it.

I would hope that this the beginning of a different attitude from Ubuntu/Canonical leaders and devs when it's time to deal with some reasonnable community desires or whishes...

Anyway, thanks again.

Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

This bug was fixed in the package unity - 7.1.2+14.04.20140318-0ubuntu1

---------------
unity (7.1.2+14.04.20140318-0ubuntu1) trusty; urgency=low

  [ Brandon Schaefer ]
  * Update the DPI when we setup the view. (LP: #1292268)
  * Do not avoid rendering the lockscreen when we have a fullscreen app.
    This also removes the old fullscreen + lockscreen fix where we force
    painted our selfs on top. (LP: #1291571)

  [ Chris Townsend ]
  * Add ability to minimize a single window application when clicking on
    the Launcher icon of the application. (LP: #733349)

  [ Andrea Azzarone ]
  * Whitelist "onboard" for rendering during lockscreen. (LP: #1291402)
  * Do not consider minimized windows for cross fade effect. (LP:
    #1291402)
 -- Ubuntu daily release <email address hidden> Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:53:51 +0000

Changed in unity (Ubuntu):
status: In Progress → Fix Released
b_b (brunobergot) wrote :

Thank you *very much* @townsend \o/

@Christopher Townsend

Thank you so much for listening to user feedback and implementing a fair compromise. Please don't under estimate how important this is to us. I can barely stand it when a lot of people want something and the developers won't even at least add it as a preference that can be access through a settings menu.

You have no idea how much this little fix has boosted my Ubuntu morale!

Question: I have a fully updated Ubuntu 14.04; when can I expect to see your fix in action (by simply installing updates suggested by the Ubuntu Update Manager)?

Hi,

The option should be available now.

CCSM->Ubuntu Unity Plugin->Launcher->Minimize Single Window Applications

On 03/19/2014 08:44 AM, Lonnie Lee Best wrote:
> @Christopher Townsend
>
> Thank you so much for listening to user feedback and implementing a fair
> compromise. Please don't under estimate how important this is to us. I
> can barely stand it when a lot of people want something and the
> developers won't even at least add it as a preference that can be access
> through a settings menu.
>
> You have no idea how much this little fix has boosted my Ubuntu morale!
>
> Question: I have a fully updated Ubuntu 14.04; when can I expect to see
> your fix in action (by simply installing updates suggested by the Ubuntu
> Update Manager)?
>

Stephen M. Webb (bregma) wrote :

@Lonnie Lee Best

It's in the Trusty archives now. Installing updates should do the trick.

CompizConfig Settings Manager-> Ubuntu Unity Plugin -> Launcher -> Minimize Single Window Applications

Yep, it's there and it works like a charm! I'm happy again ( it's the little things ).

Changed in unity:
status: In Progress → Fix Committed
Tal Liron (emblem-parade) wrote :

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to be happy with this fix. Why hide it away? Why not make it a public option in Unity settings? Most Ubuntu users will have no idea that this option is available. Those who will discover it will be baffled by how hard it is to enable (or disable) it.

We are trying to make Ubuntu better for everyone, not just fulill the needs of a few users. The only thing being "compromized" here is user friendliness.

As much as I appreciate "any way" to accomplish this, I must agree with Tal Liron.

To achieve this option, you must install additional software and a regular use won't ever know this option exists.

Furthermore, this option should be the default for 14.04. Not one bug report would be reported if this option were made default in the 14.04 release. No one would complain *period*. This should be given to everybody. It is completely intuitive. Every other major operating system does this by default.

quequotion (quequotion) wrote :

>>Townsend

First, thank you for doing the right thing. I haven't tried this feature yet, since I'm still not using Unity (or even Ubuntu anymore) and I have a question: does this feature distinguish between "focused" (to be minimized) and "unfocused" (to be focused) state?

quequotion (quequotion) wrote :

This is the code I asked about:

=== modified file 'launcher/ApplicationLauncherIcon.cpp'
--- launcher/ApplicationLauncherIcon.cpp 2014-03-12 23:46:10 +0000
+++ launcher/ApplicationLauncherIcon.cpp 2014-03-17 20:58:25 +0000
@@ -399,7 +399,16 @@
{
if (arg.source != ActionArg::Source::SWITCHER)
{
-Spread(true, 0, false);
+WindowList windows = GetWindows(WindowFilter::ON_CURRENT_DESKTOP);
+
+if (windows.size() == 1 && minimize_window_on_click)
+{
+wm.Minimize(windows[0]->window_id());
+}
+else
+{
+Spread(true, 0, false);
+}
}
}
}

Looks like it checks how many windows are in the group (windows.size() == 1) and if the setting is enabled (minimize_window_on_click); and the function is limited to windows on the current desktop (WindowFilter::ON_CURRENT_DESKTOP); but I don't see anything about focused/unfocused state.

Most of the time it will be fine as-is, especially for users who don't clutter a single workspace with lots of windows, but there may be occasions when a single window on the current desktop may be under another window or a group of windows and clicking on the icon will minimize it behind them ("Aunt Suzy"). Since there's a minimize animation to see, most users will probably realize what happened and click the icon one more time to get the desired window out and on top.

Adding an additional if statement to cover this case would be a nice improvement. Please excuse my ignorance of the proper names of the functions and variables involved; consider this a blueprint for actual code:

if (windows.size() == 1 && minimize_window_on_click)
{
+if ( windows[0]->window_state() == unfocused )
+{
+wm.Raise(windows[0]->window_id());
+}
+else
+{
 wm.Minimize(windows[0]->window_id());
 }

I know how hard it was to get this feature in even "as-is" with "no more tweaks or enhancements", and I'm happy to see it happen at all, so I won't hold it against anyone if this behavior is never updated; just a suggestion (and reiteration of the same from several comments in this report).

Stephen M. Webb (bregma) wrote :

Fix Released in Unity Unity 7.2.0.

Changed in unity:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
eZFlow (breakdevize) wrote :

I can't believe this has finally been implemented, major thanks to the guys who made this possible!

But......... it's kinda broken on my system. When i click a minimized app icon the window comes to focus but it's black. After clicking another window, the black window is restored to normal.

I'm using a gtx 670 with the official binary drivers. Can anyone reproduce this?

When it's 100% bug free adding it as an option in the control center would make sense if you want to make many more users happy who have no idea it exists (about 98% of the users).

Adnan (adnan-rauff) wrote :

Fixed the behaviour by using CompizConfig Settings Manager. Please make it part of Unity control panel

Fixed it for me with the help of http://askubuntu.com/questions/36433/can-i-use-the-unity-launcher-icon-to-minimize-applications-windows#436542
But it's hard to understand that this is not the standard behavior like on trisquel and even Windows.
Good luck hitting the minimize button with your finger on the touch screen of the 4k XPS13.

Luke (lukebenes) wrote :

This feature has been added but the behavior is hidden by default. For those like me that came here looking to fix this poor UX decision, you can enable it by:

$ gsettings set org.compiz.unityshell:/org/compiz/profiles/unity/plugins/unityshell/ launcher-minimize-window true

Verified with Ubuntu 16.04

Luke (lukebenes) wrote :

Item 2) and 5) have been fixed with Bug #733349. Unfortunately this feature is disabled by default. You can enable it by:

$ gsettings set org.compiz.unityshell:/org/compiz/profiles/unity/plugins/unityshell/ launcher-minimize-window true

sabby7890 (tsalacinski) wrote :

Already gave up on Ubuntu three years ago simply because of this. As a experienced GTK developer (two of my GTK3 applications are in Debian/Ubuntu repositories, abandoned but actively used) I pity that this happened so late, just because of someone's dumb vision and not respecing other users point of view. I'm no Linux developer anymore, but I hope someone in the Linux world will finally see it - user is the most important thing in this business. Not your development/UX model.

Jan Streffing (jstreffi) wrote :

I consider it a failure of the development community that the vision of few outweighed the desire of the many in this case. I just enabled this function that should be turned on by default.

To post a comment you must log in.