Comment 77 for bug 930148

"New users don't become committed users if they are confused early on in their explorations."
Hence: let's move dodge from default to optional. NOT "remove dodge". Can't you seriously get that?

Moreover: committed users go away if you keep changing the way Unity works on every release (or changing default apps for obscure reasons, like the Rythmbox-Banshee dance). As a matter of fact, keeping seasoned users is Ubuntu's biggest problem right now. Especially when you keep infuriating them by coming here to play games (teasing).

"Aleve, there is something here for you to learn, I would urge you to think about it."

I'm eager to learn. Please enlighten me, but stop playing games (teasing and smilies).

On 05/03/12 23:35, Aleve Sicofante wrote:
> You
> have gone from "tests poorly" to "lets remove it". This has been proven
> a fallacy too many times to insist.

References for that assertion?

1. If you're talking about "You have gone from tests poorly to let's remove it" you can't be seriously asking for references. The unity-design list is full of them.

2. If you're talking about "This has been proven a fallacy too many times to insist" you might want to re-read the whole thread here. But you must first admit what LOGIC DICTATES. When a good feature (it IS good, even you yourself like it and this very bug shows it is) is not newbie-friendly the right thing to do is to keep it hidden for advanced users to use, not removing it. Of course "killing the dog will end the rabies" (literal translation of Spanish proverb), but logic explains that "ending the rabies should be about keeping the dog alive".

Removing a feature MUST be the result of many parameters. Claiming this feature isn't maintainable MIGHT be a good reason (when added to others, like the newbie confusion or its eventual uselessness, which has been also disproved), and that's exactly why a clever guy (the OP) suggested to replace dodge with simple intellihide. Here:

if (anyWindow.maximized) {
     launcher.hide;
}
else launcher.show;

Yes, it's pseudo-code (at best, it's been ages since I stopped programming), but even the most complex implementation can't go much farther. You can't seriously say that function is hard to maintain. You can't also seriously say there are serious implications of having "too many options" when intellihide just implements an intelligent way to switch between always-hide and always-show, two states that are already supported.

The problem here, I'm afraid, is that you have made a decision ("It's settled") without even exploring alternatives (intellihide) or even applying basic logic (dogs and rabies...)