Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Shuttleworth Proposes Overhaul of Desktop Notifications

Posted by timothy on Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:47 AM
from the activated-but-not-in-use dept.
Thelasko writes "Mark Shuttleworth is considering a controversial overhaul to the way Ubuntu manages notifications." I'm not thrilled with all of the changes proposed, which would mostly value simplicity over confusion at the expense of flexibility and permanence. But anything that would make more people read over and specifically approve the wording of error messages and other notifications is a good thing.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @11:48AM (#26212689)
    Can't I just dump a stack trace to stderr and be done with it?
  • KDE 4 anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot&keirstead,org> on Tuesday December 23 2008, @11:49AM (#26212709) Homepage

    This looks to me almost exactly the same way KDE 4 notifications work. Just a slight change in the bubble look.

    • Re:KDE 4 anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ndansmith (582590) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @11:54AM (#26212765)

      It also looks almost exactly like Growl [growl.info] for OS X.

    • Re:KDE 4 anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 3vi1 (544505) <evil_NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:29PM (#26213271) Homepage Journal

      You're right. I'm running Kubuntu 9.04a2 right now, and this is how notifications are done - right down to the colors.

      I'm not saying it's a bad thing to add them to Gnome - it would probably even help when running KDE apps under Gnome and vice/versa as long as they have a standardized API.

      HOPEfully, Shuttleworth recognizes that this is *not* new and can make it play nice with KDE instead of having his guys create a completely different standard.

      • Re:KDE 4 anyone? (Score:5, Informative)

        by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday December 23 2008, @01:46PM (#26214297) Homepage Journal

        HOPEfully, Shuttleworth recognizes that this is *not* new and can make it play nice with KDE instead of having his guys create a completely different standard.

        In the article, Shuttleworth says they're working with KDE.

        • by vigour (846429) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @05:43PM (#26217133)

          HOPEfully, Shuttleworth recognizes that this is *not* new and can make it play nice with KDE instead of having his guys create a completely different standard.

          In the article, Shuttleworth says they're working with KDE.

          What? you actually RTF? I thought people stopped doing that here around 2004?

        • Re:KDE 4 anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by djcapelis (587616) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @08:07PM (#26218465) Homepage

          > In the article, Shuttleworth says they're working with KDE.

          Unfortunately their track record of actually doing this is very bad.

          So I expect them to do what they always do, which is notice a problem that exists in GNOME that KDE has had a sensible solution to for quite some time and then propose a GNOME-centric standard like libnotify (which is what they're doing) and encourage it's use everywhere. What's more annoying is that the solution they end up implementing often ends up being worse than what existed in KDE. Sometimes KDE then ends up adopting the now dominant cross-platform standard and has to do various tools to work around the braindamage that's been caused.

          (For instance, see how qdbus is the only thing that makes using dbus actually bearable because it basically provides a dcop like interface to dbus.)

          It is, to say the least, frustrating.

  • confiuration (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oliverthered (187439) <oliverthered AT hotmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 23 2008, @11:54AM (#26212771)

    a little off topic, but some configuration tools would be nice. You know for the general public. until ubuntu can do that it's going to be no where near desktop ready for most people.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Umm, what are you having trouble with? Which bit is missing for you? (genuine question)

      Gnome on Ubuntu has a whole load of stuff accessible from the System menu. The only time I touch the text files at the back is when I'm experimenting with them. For ordinary users there already are a set of admin guis that are pretty consistent and powerful.

      • Re:confiuration (Score:4, Interesting)

        by QuantumRiff (120817) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:15PM (#26213063)

        I've had a pain in the ass time doing dual monitors. Not to mention, one of my monitors can pivot (rotate) 90 degrees.. (its nice to see 2 whole pages of text when your typing on a "long screen", instead of a widescreen) but last time I looked, there is no easy way to adjust that either..

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:18PM (#26213113)

          No wonder you have a pain in your ass! Most people have a hard time shoving one monitor up there, never mind two! And then rotating it? You're hardcore.

        • Re:confiuration (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Nursie (632944) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:27PM (#26213251) Homepage

          Dual monitor config can be a pain, it's true.

          The nvidia-settings app (which should be available from the systems menu) is the easiest way I've found to do this on nvidia systems. On intel chips I've had trouble too. If you want different resolutions on each you can be in for even more pain.

          Changing res without needing to restart X has definitely got better, but I'm not sure how you'd go about autodetecting and switching screen orientation on a screen like that.

          Agreed, this area needs work.

        • Re:confiuration (Score:4, Informative)

          by windsurfer619 (958212) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:28PM (#26213261)

          Maybe you haven't used the latest version of Ubuntu, but Intrepid has got a very nice set up for configuring monitors. There's a rotation drop-down menu that lets you chose any orientation, and each monitor is labeled and freely positionable. It also gives you the option to mirror the screens if you want.

          • Re:confiuration (Score:4, Insightful)

            by blincoln (592401) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @03:03PM (#26215397) Journal

            Also, it takes a bit of reading documentation, but editing the xorg.conf file by hand isn't that hard

            It's not editing it that's hard. It's figuring out what to put in it. Especially if it's broken your GUI so you can't use a web browser to search for the arcane settings that your monitor requires. No, lynx doesn't count.

            What surprises me is that there doesn't seem to be a utility/online database of various monitors and their specs. If the autodetection doesn't work, you're basically on your own and have to track down the horizontal sync and vertical refresh rate ranges, which is stupid.

  • lame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sveard (1076275) * on Tuesday December 23 2008, @11:55AM (#26212787) Homepage

    So the entire summary is Thelasko's opinion , with a one sentence description that links to shuttleworth's blog? Perhaps a true summary of proposed changes in Ubuntu desktop notifications would have been more informative.

    • Re:lame (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Thelasko (1196535) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @01:00PM (#26213689) Journal

      So the entire summary is Thelasko's opinion , with a one sentence description that links to shuttleworth's blog? Perhaps a true summary of proposed changes in Ubuntu desktop notifications would have been more informative.

      Well after years of posting long winded descriptions and never getting published, I started posting one sentence summaries. Of course, Murphy had to show up with his stupid law...

      Anyway, I originally found the bit about this being controversial here. [lifehacker.com] I decided to go straight to the source and post from Shuttleworth's blog, rather than a third party's.

  • In favour (Score:5, Insightful)

    by invisiblerhino (1224028) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @11:58AM (#26212821)
    I like it. Maybe I'm alone here, but note in the article that Shuttleworth says that some notifications are important and should be treated differently (as "persistent panel indicators") - but there's no reason why you should have to click on "Wifi stopped working" and "Wifi started working", hence distracting you from what you're doing. Exploring new ideas is more important than whether they're good or bad, especially four months ahead of release.
      • Re:In favour (Score:5, Insightful)

        by uhmmmm (512629) <uhmmmm@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:25PM (#26213213) Homepage

        If you're concerned about your IMs being displayed as a notification, there's a reason there's an option to turn those off. They default to off in Pidgin, last I checked too.

        I disagree about not being able to interact with notifications. It's one feature I use all the time with Pidgin. It pops up a notification when a contact signs on, and the notification includes a button to open a conversation with them. Perfect for those times that the notification reminds me that I had wanted to talk to this person for some reason. The button it completely relevant to the message, and avoids a fair amount of work in figuring out where I put the buddy list window and digging through a lot of contacts to find the one that just happened to sign on.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Yes, but, as he says in the blog, that could be handled differently.

          When I have notifications on in Pidgin, I have to disable most of them. Otherwise, people signing on, signing off, messaging me, etc, generate almost constant dings and pop-ups. I especially like the semi-transparent click-through-ability of the notifications on display. I hate it when I'm about to click 'close' (or on another desktop), and a popup appears at the last second, causing something entirely unexpected to occur.

          I'm in favo

      • Maybe there should be a way to click on it and it goes away. I mean, what if the notification is an IM from your lover "hey sweetie, meet at the usual spot at 5:30" and your spouse walks in the room?

        Then perhaps you should disable desktop notifications in the preferences for VirtuaGirlfriend, or keep your mechanised Real Doll chained to the bed?

  • Users read? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smooth wombat (796938) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:03PM (#26212903) Homepage Journal
    But anything that would make more people read over and specifically approve the wording of error messages and other notifications is a good thing.

    People can't follow written instructions when dumbed down so far that a six year old can follow. What makes you think people would read what an update to an OS does?

    Case in point. We sent an email to everyone in our organization, including consultants, on Thursday afternoon (1:41 PM to be exact) specifically telling people to restart their machines, not turn them off, so Microsoft's critical update could be applied. We also told them in the same email that this procedure should be followed until further notice. Here is the relevant part:

    Microsoft has issued a critical security patch that corrects a vulnerability problem with Internet Explorer. Tonight, the Client Support group will start applying the patch to all desktops/laptops within the agency. Therefore, we are requiring that all users follow the recommended procedure of daily restarting workstations. Upon a successful restart of your workstation you will be at the Windows sign-on screen.

    Perform these steps before you leave each day.
    1) Close all open applications as you normally would.
    2) Click Start button\icon on the task bar at the bottom of your screen
    3) Select Shutdown from the available list of items
    4) Select Restart from the list of values - This is important - you must select "RESTART"
    5) Click OK - Your PC will reboot itself to the Welcome to Windows sign-on screen - from there we can apply the corrective solution


    On Monday, when I checked a log file, there were roughly 30 machines in my building alone that were turned off on Friday night rather than restarted. There were others in the field who had done the same thing.

    We know they restarted their machine on Thursday night as requested so for them to have their machines off would mean they had to physically change the value from Restart to Shutdown, completely ignoring the email that was sent to them 24 hours before.

    Only those who truly want to know what is going on will take the time to review updates. The rest will just click a button or not bother reading what is put in front of them.
    • Re:Users read? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Windrip (303053) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:26PM (#26213223) Journal
      <cluebat>
      Other humans do what's important to them, not what's important to you.
      </cluebat>

      <description type="job">
      You don't control people, you control machines.
      You do your job so others can do theirs.
      </description>

      If it's that important to perform a remote restart, drop a widget on the machine that enables remote control.
      • Re:Users read? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by causality (777677) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @02:24PM (#26214861)

        <cluebat>
        Other humans do what's important to them, not what's important to you.
        </cluebat>

        <description type="job">
        You don't control people, you control machines.
        You do your job so others can do theirs.
        </description>

        More like "other humans assume that the IT department enjoys creating work for the hell of it and that smoothly running systems which can be maintained by following simple written instructions are somehow not in their interests". How is patronizing the GP like this supposed to remedy that? You can look at an undesirable or less-than-ideal situation (i.e. the apathy of users) and accept it as the reality of the situation and work with it without ever needing to make excuses for it or justify it. Personally I find that quite a bit more appealing than saying "know your role" or "you're just the help" as though this attitude is the only way to serve others. I'm not necessarily even saying that these things aren't true; I am merely questioning the need to place so much emphasis on them.

        If it's that important to perform a remote restart, drop a widget on the machine that enables remote control.

        This part is good constructive criticism. When I mentioned "accept the reality of the situation and work with it" above, this is more like what I was talking about. Why create avoidable problems by asking users to manually follow instructions (however simple) that can be automated? I think the actions we would take to deal with this situation would be quite similar; it's really your point of view (and yours is a common one) that I'm addressing. I would handle this in a remotely administered, automated fashion because it's a better solution, it's more reliable, and it doesn't create unnecessary friction, not because I'm worried about whether it's sufficiently humble for my station. In my opinion, that attitude is one of the more regrettable products of corporate culture.

    • Re:Users read? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nategoose (1004564) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:26PM (#26213233)
      So you wanted people to leave their computers on all weekend? You must hate the environment.
    • Re:Users read? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jimicus (737525) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:40PM (#26213413) Homepage

      OK, where to start... I'll leave aside the wording of your email, seeing as most people will glaze over as soon as they see it's from IT in the first place.

      1. Your email is more than 5 lines long. IME, most people don't read beyond the first few lines so there's no point in bothering with any more than that.

      2. You expect your end users to jump through hoops for nobody's benefit but your own. Wake on LAN should deal with PCs that are turned off, if they're not turned off I leave setting up a remote reboot script to your imagination.

      3. Rewritten email:

      "We will be applying updates to your PC, part of which will involve remotely rebooting your system at 20:00 tonight. Please notify us if this is inconvenient".

      • Re:Users read? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by smooth wombat (796938) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:30PM (#26213295) Homepage Journal
        Also, why can't they just logoff?

        They could log off at night but since these are Windows machines, updates and patches don't get applied until a machine restarts. The SMS package, as far as I know, doesn't force a restart after updates are applied.

        By having people restart every night it also prevents them from staying logged in so long that their password expires and then having them call the helpdesk to complain they can't get into anything. Two weeks before their password expires, they get a notification screen reminding when they do Ctrl-Alt-Del. If they never logged out, they would never know to change their password because they would never get the notification.
        • Re:Users read? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by gQuigs (913879) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:44PM (#26213459) Homepage

          That's hilarious :).
          One of the reasons you make them restart is because the notification system just isn't good enough.

          BTW, I know I've seen Windows force restarts before.

  • WT...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:04PM (#26212915)
    FTA:

    Our hypothesis is that the existence of ANY action creates a weighty obligation to act, or to THINK ABOUT ACTING. That make notifications turn from play into work. That makes them heavy responsibilities. That makes them an interruption, not a notification. And interruptions are a bag of hurt when you have things to do.

    Then what, exactly, is the purpose of the notifications? If not to invoke immediate action, then just send an email summary at the end of the day of all the "notifications" that happened in the last 24 hours. Short of showing changes in a network state, what would be urgent enough to show immediately, on top of all other windows, but not important enough to want to address at the same time?

    "Your download is complete." I'll want to open the file.

    "You have new email." I'll want to read the email.

    "Your mom cried when she read your heartwarming birthday card." I'll want to pick up the phone.

    What are these mysterious notifications that won't invoke a desire to perform some sort of action from the user?

  • Old-school UNIX. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:05PM (#26212929)

    Old-school programs often had a messages window which contained notifications. You could view or dismiss it at will, and it was unintrusive. Try running xfig for that old-school feeling. In some, it was even embedded in the main window, so it was always there.

    Or to get closer to the point, there's always xterm... Messages appear and scroll by eventually, but they have nothing except their existence oaasociated with them. No buttons, no links, no hideous, evil, modal dialogs and so on.

  • by Radhruin (875377) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:05PM (#26212931)
    Having the notification bubbles disappear when you mouse over (well, under) them doesn't seem usable. The user will see the bubble and want to interact with it in some way. Mousing over should decrease opacity and allow the user to interact with the dialog, such as immediately remove it or click on it to bring up the application that spawned the notification. I'm very familiar with computers, and it still seems very strange to "mouse under" something.
  • by gandhi_2 (1108023) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:12PM (#26213023) Homepage

    This is one case where I think that Microsoft has been the industry leader.

    White lettering on azure field, clearly states the information, and no user can ignore it or work past it.

    "A problem has been detected and windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer..."

  • by Atrox666 (957601) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:27PM (#26213257)
    Every so often the interface should generate a dialog box that says: "Are you an idiot Y/N" If the user consistently answers no then the dialog boxes disappear. If they just click yes on every box in front of them then the operating system trojanizes its self to save other people the effort.
  • Update hell (Score:5, Insightful)

    by British (51765) <british1500@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:41PM (#26213421) Homepage Journal

    In Windows land, it seems just about dang near every application you install has notification annoyances when you start the PC.
    1. Java Virtual machine seems to get an update every other day. This is just great, since I don't have enough java VM versions on my add/remove programs. Thanks!
    2. Windows Media Player will irritate you with a media update every day, it seems.
    3. Can't forget Itunes! What minor revision do you have now that doesn't seem to do much for me? Hey, what's all these extra applications you think I should install as well?
    4. Macromedia Flash, ahh, can't forget that one.
    5. HP Printer drivers. Just screams "me too".
    6. Probably Steam has an update too.

    And that's not even the usual update patches from Windows Update.

    Don't turn your computer on in over a week, and you'll be going through 20 minutes of updating stuff. There are times I wish software WASN'T updated so frequently.

  • Mystery Girl (Score:3, Insightful)

    by D Ninja (825055) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @12:48PM (#26213531)

    I love this remark from the article about notifications -

    They are gone like a mystery girl on the bus you didnâ(TM)t get on, and they enrich your life in exactly the same way!

    The first thing I thought of was, "So...they don't."

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Why?

      They consume debian, not fedora.

      It might be good for cross-distro relations but it seems a bit much to force them onto another, fairly well separated distro just for that.

    • Re:Pretty... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Tuesday December 23 2008, @01:27PM (#26214047) Journal

      Because the GNOME guys didn't come up with, and may not want, it.
      Because this is not "linux UI development", it is Ubuntu specific UI development.

      Remember boys (and girls, if the three of you are reading this) Linux doesn't have a GUI, it has various flavors of X Windows. X Windows doesn't have a window manager, it has 15. X Windows doesn't have a desk top environment, it has at least two that I know of and possibly more.