Comment 269 for bug 532633
Revision history for this message
| CyrusCT (cyrusct) wrote Re: [light-theme] please revert the order of the window controls back to "menu:minimize,maximize,close" | #269 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
f33e652
(Get the code!)
I think the real problem here isn't whether the controls are on the left or on the right. If users don't like something, they will find a way to change it, and share those changes with other like minded users. The real issue seems to be about whether or not the novice user will be able to make such changes and how the applications and user interface respect those changes if specified.
In xubuntu, there is already a solution to this issue. When selecting the theme, there are options on the right side of the "Window Manager" window where the user can select which elements are represented in the title bare and where they are placed. These options to modify become unavailable when they are not supported by the theme. Since both Gnome and Xfce are based on Gtk, it shouldn't be too hard to add these configuration options to ubuntu. I would recommend including them so that they can be accessed by opening Appearance Preferences, going to the Theme tab, clicking on the Customize... button, and having them be somewhere on the Window Border tab of the Customize Theme window.
As long as the process for changing the setting can be found intuitively by a novice, I don't care where the default position is.
As for my own preference, that would be on the right, in order to be consistent with the KDE apps I use, when I rdesktop in to one of the computers at work (which much to my dismay run Win98 and WinXP).
I can see the merit of clearing the space for things to come, and not wanting the LTS release to look outdated, but if it will be 2 year before the things to come actually arrive, e.g., not implemented in 10.04.1, 10.04.2, etc., then I fail to see the benefit of doing this in an LTS. I would greatly appreciate it if Mark S. would indicate some of the intended uses, or indicate that he is not at liberty to disclose that information, and why (such as a statement indicating that Canonical can't afford the risk of their business competitors getting a hold of the prospective uses for the area). The secrecy without reason will only aid Microsoft's FUD-mongering.