Comment 6 for bug 1366746

From a design perspective, I would prefer keep things quite simple and
having a good default option. I can't see the need of sorting A-Z, most
people will need 1-8 cities at the very top.

We have a few gestures in the design framework, but they are consistently
applied and this not one of them.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:40 PM, James Hunt <email address hidden>
wrote:

> Right. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't sort alphabetically by
> default, but it would be useful if you could sort either alphabetically
> or by UTC.
>
> How about adding an "invisible" sort option...?
>
> - long-touch on a city to sort alphabetically.
> - long touch on a clock face to sort by time.
>
> That would avoid having to add nasty column headings that would spoil
> the very clean look of the clock. It's not that obviously discoverable
> but would be very neat :-)
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a bug assignee.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1366746
>
> Title:
> allow cities to be sorted by relative time
>
> Status in Clock application for Ubuntu devices:
> Confirmed
> Status in Ubuntu UX bugs:
> Opinion
>
> Bug description:
> Adding cities currently shows them in an alphabetically-sorted list.
> However, it would be useful if alternatively they could be listed in
> relative time order.
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-clock-app/+bug/1366746/+subscriptions
>