Indicator applet Always shows icon

[Vish]

Binary package hint: indicator-applet

The present behavior is being changed in Karmic :
When there are no apps ,which use the indicator applet, running > Indicator Always shows icon in the panel.

This is a waste of space and a regression from the old behavior when the panel was just blank when there where no apps running.

[this seems to be a design decision , but hope this is kept as a wishlist for later.]

ProblemType: Bug
Architecture: i386
Date: Fri Aug 7 15:35:23 2009
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
Package: indicator-applet 0.2.0~bzr319-0ubuntu4
ProcEnviron:
 LANG=en_IN
 SHELL=/bin/bash
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-5.24-generic
SourcePackage: indicator-applet
Uname: Linux 2.6.31-5-generic i686

[Vish (vish)]

It seems> " in usability testing is that folks would go there for their mail even when it wasn't running. "

I suggest making the icon a dynamic one , :
-when several im client alone is running > show icon of speak bubble
-when im client and email client are running > show icon of the mail envelope..

[Vish (vish)]

For users who cant remove the indicator applet...> it can be removed from Startup Applications ,
[but even so its not visible when not in use ,so i dont understand the problem , its just a 1px space when not used]

[Vish (vish)]

Oh, Thanx to Sebastien Bacher , just realized that the startup applications was not what prevented it from loading,

But rather, I had killed the process "indicator applet" form the System monitor before unchecking the Startup application !

Well... this is not an easy process for a new user,
But still i dont think 1 px hurt anyone, than having the icon always present! [which is redundant!]

[manzur (sl-solaris)]

i confirm, ubuntu 9.10 alpha 4 - karmic koala AMD64

[Carey Underwood (cwillu)]

mac_v, it displays a ~20 pixel wide envelope icon, even with no applications running at all. (Note that this is a karmic bug, but jaunty's behaviour is what you're describing)

[Carey Underwood (cwillu)]

Nevermind that, I misread your comment.

[Noel J. Bergman (noeljb)]

> it displays a ~20 pixel wide envelope icon, even with no applications running at all

Yes, I was just going to report that defect. Is there an existing report other than this one? If not, why isn't this one marked as confirmed?

[Noel J. Bergman (noeljb)]

Unfortunately, from Bug 377795, it appears that this icon is supposed to be an indicator and menu combined, so it will always be there as a menu, even if there are no notices to display. But showing an email icon when there is no email is poor UI design.

[Vish (vish)]

The after the recent wiki updates, it states that the apps will be shown even when they are not running ,as a launcher.
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MessagingMenu#API [this wiki is constantly updated and the applet is still in heavy development]
I guess, we'll have to wait for feature freeze to know exactly what its full functionality is.

There is another problem ,If the menu is going to be combined as a launcher, the evolution icon from the top panel needs to be removed , since will become unnecessary duplication.

@Noel J Bergman, I agree it is *redundant to show the icon of an envelope for all messaging* !
So i had contacted the devs and design team regarding this and they were *initially* interested in a different icon and were open to suggestions for a monochrome icon of an "Inbox" . I had submitted a monochrome icon for the indicator applet,But the person I was in contact with was replaced from the project.

I then tried to contact the next design team member but did not receive a response from him. [but in his defense,the design team is being overruled in this design]

*Attaching the icon i had submitted* [.png version],since you too feel the same way about the envelope,
Just add it to the < ~./icons/IconThemeName/24x24/status > folder. The icon will take effect once you re-select your icon theme.
But, I also notice that there is one new icon for the indicator applet , I do not know what this new icon is for ,hence I havent designed it yet.[once the functions are clear I'd be making the icon. I'll attach them , *if you want*]

My suggestion to the design team would be:
- Use a generic icon which indicates all forms of messaging.
 - Use an envelope overlay for new email
 - Use a chat bubble overlay for new chat
 - Use an "@" overlay for gwibber and relevant
- Make the icon partly invisible when no messaging apps are running.[i think this is already being done]
Expanding the icons used by the applet will make the applet more relevant and quicker to identify the type of message received.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

The intent is for all messaging to fit into that menu - launching your
gmail monitor, launching IM clients, and knowing that you have new
messages, all belong there. The envelope icon is widely used as a proxy
for "you have a message from a human being", so that will stay the icon
of choice on the panel.

Mark

[Vish (vish)]

On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 07:10 +0000, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> The intent is for all messaging to fit into that menu - launching your
> gmail monitor, launching IM clients, and knowing that you have new
> messages, all belong there. The envelope icon is widely used as a proxy
> for "you have a message from a human being", so that will stay the icon
> of choice on the panel.
>
> Mark
>

I agree that the envelope icon can be used for now , as we are not
differentiating between the different messages .

 my suggestion was something for the future, maybe even a feature
request ;) , to allow differentiation between the messages.[and was not
actually relevant to this bug report]

This bug can be invalidated , If someone could confirm that indicator
applet,in karmic, will double as a launcher too . I had started this bug
prior to the recent wiki changes.

[Noel J. Bergman (noeljb)]

Mark,

> The intent is for all messaging to fit into that menu - launching your
> gmail monitor, launching IM clients, and knowing that you have new
> messages, all belong there.

I don't have a problem with that, although it will be interesting to see how much traction you get from the various messaging apps, not all of which are written specifically for Ubuntu.

> The envelope icon is widely used as a proxy for "you have a message from a human being"

Aha! And this is the nature of the bug as I see it. I do not HAVE a message of any kind, but I still have the e-mail icon. Please switch to some other icon when there ARE NO MESSAGES, and I'll be satisfied.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Aha! And this is the nature of the bug as I see it. I do not HAVE a
> message of any kind, but I still have the e-mail icon. Please switch to
> some other icon when there ARE NO MESSAGES, and I'll be satisfied.
>
I agree, there should be no icon if it serves no use.

In 9.10, it will be possible to launch messaging applications from the
menu. It should also be possible to configure the apps NOT to be there
(so, for example, if you don't use evolution then it needn't be possible
to launch it from there). If there is NOTHING in the menu, then it
should disappear.

Mark

[Ted Gould (ted)]

On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 20:07 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Aha! And this is the nature of the bug as I see it. I do not HAVE a
> > message of any kind, but I still have the e-mail icon. Please switch to
> > some other icon when there ARE NO MESSAGES, and I'll be satisfied.
> >
> I agree, there should be no icon if it serves no use.
>
> In 9.10, it will be possible to launch messaging applications from the
> menu. It should also be possible to configure the apps NOT to be there
> (so, for example, if you don't use evolution then it needn't be
> possible to launch it from there). If there is NOTHING in the menu,
> then it should disappear.

Yes, we spec'd it as such. Someone will have to disable the launchers
that they've installed via the preference dialog, but after that it will
disappear. (sorry, I hadn't updated the bug since we discussed this)

  --Ted

[David Barth (dbarth)]

Ted Gould wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 20:07 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>
>>> Aha! And this is the nature of the bug as I see it. I do not HAVE a
>>> message of any kind, but I still have the e-mail icon. Please switch to
>>> some other icon when there ARE NO MESSAGES, and I'll be satisfied.
>>>
>>>
>> I agree, there should be no icon if it serves no use.
>>
>> In 9.10, it will be possible to launch messaging applications from the
>> menu. It should also be possible to configure the apps NOT to be there
>> (so, for example, if you don't use evolution then it needn't be
>> possible to launch it from there). If there is NOTHING in the menu,
>> then it should disappear.
>>
>
> Yes, we spec'd it as such. Someone will have to disable the launchers
> that they've installed via the preference dialog, but after that it will
> disappear. (sorry, I hadn't updated the bug since we discussed this)
>
The current proposal to remove the icon, but only if:
  1. there are no messages waiting
  2. each of the application launchers have been manually disabled by
the user

seems a bit difficult to discover.

I think we need an option in the Preferences to hide the icon.

Proposed change:
 - if no app launchers are registered, or all of them have been
blacklisted, then the option should automatically check itself ("Hide
the icon when there are no new messages")
 - when the option is set, the UI to arrange app. launchers should be
grayed out (indicating that none of the launchers will be shown anyway),
whereas when it's not set, the user can then fine tune the list of
displayed launchers.

David

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

David Barth wrote:
> Ted Gould wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 20:07 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>>
>>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aha! And this is the nature of the bug as I see it. I do not HAVE a
>>>> message of any kind, but I still have the e-mail icon. Please switch to
>>>> some other icon when there ARE NO MESSAGES, and I'll be satisfied.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree, there should be no icon if it serves no use.
>>>
>>> In 9.10, it will be possible to launch messaging applications from the
>>> menu. It should also be possible to configure the apps NOT to be there
>>> (so, for example, if you don't use evolution then it needn't be
>>> possible to launch it from there). If there is NOTHING in the menu,
>>> then it should disappear.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we spec'd it as such. Someone will have to disable the launchers
>> that they've installed via the preference dialog, but after that it will
>> disappear. (sorry, I hadn't updated the bug since we discussed this)
>>
> The current proposal to remove the icon, but only if:
> 1. there are no messages waiting
> 2. each of the application launchers have been manually disabled by
> the user
>
> seems a bit difficult to discover.
>
> I think we need an option in the Preferences to hide the icon.
>
> Proposed change:
> - if no app launchers are registered, or all of them have been
> blacklisted, then the option should automatically check itself ("Hide
> the icon when there are no new messages")
> - when the option is set, the UI to arrange app. launchers should be
> grayed out (indicating that none of the launchers will be shown
> anyway), whereas when it's not set, the user can then fine tune the
> list of displayed launchers.
-1

There is no need for a Preferences for the Messaging Menu, and this use
case does not justify the creation of one. The messaging menu should be
removed ONLY if there are NO applications configured to present
themselves in there when not running, and no applications running which
can be accessed through the menu (either directly or to individual
messages).

Mark

[Ted Gould (ted)]

On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:15 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> There is no need for a Preferences for the Messaging Menu, and this
> use case does not justify the creation of one.

We have specified a preference dialog for the messaging menu. The
reason is for blacklisting applications.

Originally the control of whether the launcher is in the messaging menu
was in the application preferences. Which is nice. But in the case
where someone gets an application that they know they don't use, they
have to open that application and find the setting to remove it. Which
is a pain. But, it is then also compounded by the fact that most
messaging applications prompt to set up an account on first run before
they'd even give you the choice to set preferences. So, to remove an
application you know you're not going to use you'd have to start it,
configure it, and then set the preference to remove it.

On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 10:24 +0100, David Barth wrote:
> seems a bit difficult to discover.
>
> I think we need an option in the Preferences to hide the icon.

I disagree with this. I think that it is hard to discover if your goal
is to hide the icon. But I think in that case people will remove the
applet. I think that we can let people make a choice to remove
applications application by application. We don't need an override for
that.

  --Ted

[David Siegel (djsiegel-deactivatedaccount)]

On Aug 25, 2009, at 8:44AM , Ted Gould wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:15 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>> There is no need for a Preferences for the Messaging Menu, and this
>> use case does not justify the creation of one.
>
> We have specified a preference dialog for the messaging menu. The
> reason is for blacklisting applications.
>
> Originally the control of whether the launcher is in the messaging
> menu
> was in the application preferences. Which is nice. But in the case
> where someone gets an application that they know they don't use, they
> have to open that application and find the setting to remove it.
> Which
> is a pain. But, it is then also compounded by the fact that most
> messaging applications prompt to set up an account on first run before
> they'd even give you the choice to set preferences. So, to remove an
> application you know you're not going to use you'd have to start it,
> configure it, and then set the preference to remove it.
>
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 10:24 +0100, David Barth wrote:
>> seems a bit difficult to discover.
>>
>> I think we need an option in the Preferences to hide the icon.
>
> I disagree with this. I think that it is hard to discover if your
> goal
> is to hide the icon. But I think in that case people will remove the
> applet. I think that we can let people make a choice to remove
> applications application by application. We don't need an override
> for
> that.

I wouldn't think of it as an override, but more as an explicit
mentioning of the effect of disabling all launchers. Think of the user
who has just disabled all launchers - hopefully he will notice that
the "hide icon" checkbox was just checked, and he will realize (1)
that the icon will be hidden and (2) why. He also has the option to
make sure the icon isn't hidden.

David

>
> --Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to : <email address hidden>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[David Siegel (djsiegel-deactivatedaccount)]

On Aug 25, 2009, at 8:44AM , Ted Gould wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:15 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>> There is no need for a Preferences for the Messaging Menu, and this
>> use case does not justify the creation of one.
>
> We have specified a preference dialog for the messaging menu. The
> reason is for blacklisting applications.
>
> Originally the control of whether the launcher is in the messaging
> menu
> was in the application preferences. Which is nice. But in the case
> where someone gets an application that they know they don't use, they
> have to open that application and find the setting to remove it.
> Which
> is a pain. But, it is then also compounded by the fact that most
> messaging applications prompt to set up an account on first run before
> they'd even give you the choice to set preferences. So, to remove an
> application you know you're not going to use you'd have to start it,
> configure it, and then set the preference to remove it.

For a concrete example, consider Evolution. To remove the Evolution
launcher from the messaging menu, you'd have to launch Evolution and
set up your email account before you can access Evolution's
preferences and disable the launcher. If the messaging menu lets you
access a simple blacklist, you can just go there and uncheck Evolution
and be done with it.

David

>
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 10:24 +0100, David Barth wrote:
>> seems a bit difficult to discover.
>>
>> I think we need an option in the Preferences to hide the icon.
>
> I disagree with this. I think that it is hard to discover if your
> goal
> is to hide the icon. But I think in that case people will remove the
> applet. I think that we can let people make a choice to remove
> applications application by application. We don't need an override
> for
> that.
>
> --Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to : <email address hidden>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Noel J. Bergman (noeljb)]

> To remove the Evolution launcher from the messaging menu, you'd have to launch Evolution
> and set up your email account

Really? You're kidding? That's got to be a joke, right? Comedy writers are doing UI design? I'll assume that is an oversight to be corrected. If a user has not configured Evolution, Pidgin, Empathy, or other, it should not be present in the messaging menu.

[Rick Spencer (rick-rickspencer3)]

Noel - Thanks for your feedback and for supporting the project. In the future, I would ask that you avoid the use of irony in your bug comments, as it can be somewhat difficult for some people to read the tone correctly, and to extract your feedback.

In any case, I think that you are proposing that applications that have not been configured should not appear in the menu. Presumably the user would express that they are interested in tracking the status of an application by configuring it.

For my part, I think that the default communication applications *should* be there by default. They are the *default* applications, and this is a good way for the user to discover them.

[Vish (vish)]

Noel, To maintain a respectful atmosphere, please follow the code of conduct - http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct/ .
Bug reports are handled by humans, the majority of whom are volunteers, [though most of whom have commented here, work for Canonical] so please bear this in mind , constructive criticism would be helpful. Thank you!

[Noel J. Bergman (noeljb)]

> Thanks for your feedback and for supporting the project.

You're welcome.

> I think that you are proposing that applications that have not been configured should not appear in the menu.
> Presumably the user would express that they are interested in tracking the status of an application by
> configuring it.

Yes. I believe in opt-in, not opt-out. But ...

> I think that the default communication applications *should* be there by default. They are
> the *default* applications, and this is a good way for the user to discover them.

Look, there are a lot of things that someone might want to configure about their environment. Rather than assume that you know what each user wants, a freshly created account could have some icons on the desktop for personalizing the experience. Clicking on the "Setup E-mail and Messaging" would run through a setup process, and the icon could be removed afterwards.

But even if you do pre-configure the menu, it should not be necessary to actually configure something that you do not want to use in order to remove it. Can we agree on that? Make removal less of a comedy skit, and I won't care as much about having to clean out the cruft.

[Noel J. Bergman (noeljb)]

Mac, there is nothing in the code of conduct that says that hyperbole and humor are not acceptable. Or, as Rick said, irony. In this case, making fun of the idea that to remove a thing you must first configure the thing. Rick does have a point that parsing humor may be an issue for the language, or humor, impaired.

> constructive criticism would be helpful

You might make note of my response to Rick.

I appreciate Mark's substantial investment in the community. I particularly grateful for, and hope to see fruit from, his hiring "designers, user experience champions and interaction design visionaries [to] lead not only Canonical’s distinctive projects but also to participate in GNOME, KDE and other upstream efforts to improve FLOSS usability." I just hope that the efforts will be more collaborate and less contentious than with the upgrade manager.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Really? You're kidding? That's got to be a joke, right? Comedy
> writers are doing UI design?
Ad hominem comments will get your mail filtered, especially when you're
talking about my work ;-)

Yes, you will configure the use of the messaging menu from the
applications themselves, there is no intent to have a global preference
set for the menu's behaviour. Yes, that means that if you want Evolution
not to use it, you need to fire up evolution and tell it not to do so.

I don't use Evolution either, but I use Ubuntu, and Evolution is the
Ubuntu default mail client. I can reasonably be expected to run it as
part of configuring Ubuntu's behaviour.

Mark

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Look, there are a lot of things that someone might want to configure
> about their environment. Rather than assume that you know what each
> user wants, a freshly created account could have some icons on the
> desktop for personalizing the experience.

For better or worse, we have a different approach in Ubuntu. We actively
make choices on behalf of our users, presenting them with an environment
that is ready to go. Often, there are expert users who have different
preferences, we ask them to go the extra mile to get the environment to
their satisfaction, we don't ask everyone to make a lot of choices just
to get to a sane starting point.

The process of selecting the defaults is transparent, and you'd be
welcome to participate. We don't want to be presenting new users with an
experience that's suboptimal in the general case, and we're willing to
make changes to previous decisions (we're busy moving from Pidgin to
Empathy, for example) when circumstances change or we have better insight.

In this case, Evolution will appear there because we are telling new
users "this is where you do messaging", and Evolution is the default
mail client we've selected. Some users will have other preferences, they
are usually smart and competent enough to make those changes.

Mark

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Ted Gould wrote:
> We have specified a preference dialog for the messaging menu. The
> reason is for blacklisting applications.
>
Please unspecify said preference dialog ;-)

Relevant apps installed by the user should put themselves in this menu.
For default apps which are not desired by the user, the preference to
take them out of the menu will be in the app. Best we pick those
defaults well!

The menu may disappear when there are:

 - no apps trying to display anything there, including
 - no apps with launchers there

Mark

[Scott Kitterman (kitterman)]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:55:38 +0100 Mark Shuttleworth <email address hidden>
wrote:
>For default apps which are not desired by the user, the preference to take
them out of the menu will be in the app. Best we pick those defaults well

And also best that these apps not require configuration prior to gaining
access to the preference (e.g. the Evolution example given earlier).
Requiring users to set up applications in order to not be bothered by them
in the menu is not a usability win.

For the Qt/KDE implementation, the stricture might be more relaxed. Right
click on menu items is quite normal and not at all unexpected.

Scott K

[Toni Ruottu (toni-ruottu)]

I don't get it. How is evolution going to be able to spam the indicator applet without being configured first? It is not like you'd be receiving email messages with a broken configuration.

[Noel J. Bergman (noeljb)]

> Ad hominem comments will get your mail filtered, especially when you're
> talking about my work ;-)

Actually, it was an attack on the idea (e.g., referring to it as a joke), so it was unintentional if you took it as ad hominem. :-) But I won't suggest or submit to argumentum ad verecundiam, either. :-)

> you will configure the use of the messaging menu from the applications themselves

> that means that if you want Evolution not to use it, you need to fire up evolution and
> tell it not to do so.

> I don't use Evolution either, but [I] can reasonably be expected to run it as
> part of configuring Ubuntu's behaviour.

I'm not so sure about those points.

 * How are users supposed to know, a priori, that in order to remove item A from program B,
   they need to change program A? Mind you, I'm not a fan of the Gnome Main Menu Editor,
   either. I would prefer to see *direct* interaction with the menus.

 * Once knowing that you have to configure program A, how MUCH configuration should you
    have to do to simply disable it? It should be dead simple, not "first tell me all about you,
    then I'll let you turn off a checkbox."

This last part isn't really Evolution's fault. It was written on the assumption that if you run it, you want to use it; and if you want to use it, you need an account. Now we have the new concept of, I am running it to get rid of it.

> we have a different approach in Ubuntu. We actively make choices on behalf of our users,
> presenting them with an environment that is ready to go.

The latter is, generally, good. We do want Ubuntu for Granny.

> we ask [expert users] to go the extra mile to get the environment to
> their satisfaction

But don't always provide the necessary documentation, nor do I believe that it has been said that the workarounds (e.g., the gconf setting for the update manager) will be preserved in future versions.

If Ubuntu is going to make those decisions, and still wants to allow users -- let's not require them to be EXPERTS -- to diverge from the default choices, there should be a document that describes the decisions made and how to configure the system otherwise.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> And also best that these apps not require configuration prior to gaining
> access to the preference (e.g. the Evolution example given earlier).
> Requiring users to set up applications in order to not be bothered by them
> in the menu is not a usability win.
>
+1 and good point!

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> * How are users supposed to know, a priori, that in order to remove item A from program B,
> they need to change program A? Mind you, I'm not a fan of the Gnome Main Menu Editor,
> either. I would prefer to see *direct* interaction with the menus.
>
Someone who knows what Evolution is already is likely to be smart enough
to fire it up and turn off that display.

Someone who DOESN't know what it is is a candidate for running it,
because they almost certainly want email.

> * Once knowing that you have to configure program A, how MUCH configuration should you
> have to do to simply disable it? It should be dead simple, not "first tell me all about you,
> then I'll let you turn off a checkbox."
>
Strongly agreed - I'd forgotten about Evo's breakage in that regard.

> If Ubuntu is going to make those decisions, and still wants to allow
> users -- let's not require them to be EXPERTS -- to diverge from the
> default choices, there should be a document that describes the decisions
> made and how to configure the system otherwise.
>
Fair point, and if such a doc doesn't exist on wiki.ubuntu.com now would
be a good place to do so, and the weekly developer news would be a good
place to socialise it so that people know to add stuff there (like the
gnome strachiatella bits).

Mark

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

Mark, the reason we had decided on a separate dialog is that where an application requires an account to be useful, it's quite reasonable for the application to offer only an account setup interface at launch, and to exit if you decline. Claws Mail, Emesene, Eva, Sim-IM, Twinkle, and XChat are examples of Ubuntu applications that do this, and the next version of Empathy may too. In these applications, it is not possible to get to any general configuration interface before you have set up an account, so it is not possible to get to the point that would let you remove the application from the messaging menu (and thereby hide the messaging menu). If you are the only person who ever uses the computer, you could apply the nuclear option by uninstalling the unwanted program, but what if you're not? Mary-Beth shouldn't need to go spelunking though the interface of whatever crazy new IM program her son has installed on the computer this week, so that she can find the option to prevent that application from appearing in *her* messaging menu.

An alternative way to solve this problem, perhaps, would be to have a user-specific whitelist of which applications may appear in the menu. That way, Evolution would appear in the menu at all only if you have set up an account in Evolution. Empathy would appear in the menu at all only if you have set up an account in Empathy. And so on. This would diminish the reliability of Mary-Beth telling Mary-Sue over the phone how to get to Evolution if Mary-Sue had never used Evolution before. But perhaps more importantly, it would mean that Mary-Beth would no longer need to become a whiz at navigating preferences dialogs.

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Mark, the reason we had decided on a separate dialog is that where an
> application requires an account to be useful, it's quite reasonable for
> the application to offer only an account setup interface at launch, and
> to exit if you decline. Claws Mail, Emesene, Eva, Sim-IM, Twinkle, and
> XChat are examples of Ubuntu applications that do this, and the next
> version of Empathy may too.

Fix 'em.

[Ted Gould (ted)]

So, the discussion on this bug strayed a little bit. Perhaps more than a little bit. But, with regards to the original issue of the icon hiding that is implemented in the current release. If there are no launchers (or they are hidden) and there is no running applications indicating anything, the icon is hidden. I'm marking this as "Fix Released".

[Allan Caeg (allancaeg)]

Found this bug report. Check this related one out https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/indicator-applet/+bug/468007