Comment 5 for bug 1238182
Revision history for this message
| Michał Sawicz (saviq) wrote Re: [Bug 1238182] Re: Should close indicators when triggered anotification or an application | #5 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
On 17.10.2013 22:55, Lars Uebernickel wrote:
> Michał, I disagree. The indicators are menus, and they should behave as
> such: activating a menu item closes the menu. Relying on indicators to
> send a message to close the menu sounds error prone and wasteful.
>
> However, I agree with Matthew that there are some exceptions. Keeping
> the menu open to display the switch changing is just a special case of
> the above rule. For the other cases, we could have a flag on the menu
> item that signifies that the shell should keep the menu open after the
> item is activated. I imagine this is by far the minority, so it should
> be opt-in.
I'm not sure we disagree, actually, I wrote:
"It can be as simple as marking those that shouldn't result in hiding [...]"
So this is exactly what you're saying? I just wouldn't like to have to
build that knowledge into the UI, where some checkboxes should probably
close the indicators and other shouldn't. I'm good with closing by
default, and opt-in to persistency.
--
Michał (Saviq) Sawicz <email address hidden>
Canonical Services Ltd.