Shuttleworth Proposes Overhaul of Desktop Notifications 306
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.
KDE 4 anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
It also looks almost exactly like Growl [growl.info] for OS X.
confiuration (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
lame (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
In favour (Score:5, Insightful)
WT...? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:In favour (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Users read? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:KDE 4 anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Users read? (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Update hell (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Users read? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Should do expirementation in Fedora (Score:3, Insightful)
Mystery Girl (Score:3, Insightful)
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:welcome to 2004, Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
So Mac users recently got what GNU/Linux users have had for over a decade [apple.com]?
Revolutionary! :-)
(let's face it: software development is an iterative process, where it often makes sense to take inspiration from other people doing similar things. As everyone does this, it's not a bad thing, in fact it helps spur innovation.)
Wrong tool for the job (Score:1, Insightful)
It is exactly this notion that Shuttleworth is challenging. You see notifications as a sort of transient dialog box that implies action. He sees them as, well, notifications. I am inclined to agree with him. If you might want to read your new email, why only give yourself a 3-second window in which to click the notification? Does your interest in reading the email (or opening the file, etc.) disappear after a few seconds? What if you're busy now, but want to read the email later? Transient notifications are the wrong tool for the job. Put a clickable mail icon on your panel to signal that there is unread mail. Use the pop-up notification only to provide a heads-up about there being new mail. If the user is busy (or away from the computer) they will still want to read their email once they have the attention to spare.
And don't you dare suggest that notifications should be permanent until the user dismisses them! That's intrusive and obnoxious.
Re:In favour (Score:3, Insightful)
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 favour!
Re:Pretty... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Users read? (Score:2, Insightful)
Amen! I would lead with:
"Restart every night to protect your computer."
Put your request/demand/question at the top of the email, then followup with details about what you want and why you want it. Make it terse, so people can read it fast (in Outlook AutoPreview, even). Bake an even terser version into the subject line ("Restart Every Night"). This lets you get your point across before the reader can hit the delete key.
Incidentally, most readers aren't interested in why you want something or the idiot's guide to doing it (if it's a known operation like "restart"). You need these details (for a big audience), but your message penetration will be lower if you lead off with them. Just tell people what you need of them. Other low priority information includes: how the decision was reached, what policy enforces it, and what vague alternatives might be hand-wavingly considered in the future. Never include grovelling and never lord it over your users: you are speaking professional to professional.
Pro tip: if there's an intrinsic motivation for your reader, mention it second (after your request but before the details). Saying "to protect your computer" speaks to the typical office worker's needs waaaaaaay faster than "Microsoft has issued a critical security patch that corrects a vulnerability problem with Internet Explorer." I can live for a few hours without IE, but I can't do anything if my workstation isn't running. On the other hand, if there's no motivation for the reader (or if it's trivial, or if it's hard to understand, or if it's a threat of punishment), you're better off burying these details in your verbiage.
Re:confiuration (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:confiuration (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is acceptable to you? This is exactly what you shouldn't have to do.
Re:Users read? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Users read? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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:WT...? (Score:3, Insightful)
What are these mysterious notifications that won't invoke a desire to perform some sort of action from the user?
For me, all of the things you mentioned, and many more.
Yes, I MAY want to open the file, read the e-mail, etc., but often I don't want to do that right now. I want to know that I could, but I don't want to stop what I'm doing.
At first glance, this means that I should want a notification that I can click on to invoke the corresponding action if I want, and ignore if I don't. The problem with that is that it raises another question: When should the notification go away?
If the answer is that it should stay until I dismiss it, then that means that every notification that pops up interrupts my work because I have to look at it, decide what to do and then dismiss it. Until I do, it'll stay there and keep annoying me. Thus, with that approach, a notification is an unavoidable distraction.
If the answer is that it should stay for a period of time and then go away, that makes the issue worse because now I not only have to make a decision, I also have a time limit for my decision. If I don't click fast enough, then I miss the opportunity the notification is giving me. In addition, if the notification is about something important, I may miss it if I'm away, so this means that important notifications must also be displayed -- and the associated actions accessible -- in some more persistent way, other than the notification. If the notification information and action can be accessed some other way, though, then how does it help me to have the notification and be able to click it?
I like Shuttleworth's answer. A transient, transparent notification that is either readable or ignorable, and which doesn't interfere with my work both because it's brief and because I can see, type and click right through it provides me with a cue to pay attention to the more persistent indicators in the system tray, but distracts as little as possible.
The key is that behind nearly every transient notification there must be a persistent but very unobtrusive notification -- a system tray icon being the most obvious form. That notifier provides a clickable area that will allow me to quickly and easily jump to the associated application, so there's no need to be able to click on a pop-up notification. If I want to read my e-mail, I click on the mail app icon. Same with the download manager, or Wireless config app.
Those very unobtrusive notifications are good for staying out of your way, but bad at letting me know when there's something I may want to pay attention to. That's where these non-interactive notification bubbles come in. Because they're translucent and transparent to mouse clicks and keystrokes I can continue my work completely uninterrupted, other than perhaps -- at my option -- briefly shifting my attention long enough to read them.
They don't demand any interaction at all, though, and don't get in the way of whatever I'm currently doing. If I choose to act on them, that's only a click on the appropriate icon away.
We'll have to see how it works in practice, but I think the concept makes a lot of sense.
Re:confiuration (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm the end user. I'm far more loyal to my software vendor than I am to my hardware vendor. If Nvidias hardware won't work with Ubuntu because they want to keep playing stupid tricks with their binary drivers, then it is not fit for purchase, and I will buy from someone else.
Pretty cut and dried.
Re:confiuration (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:confiuration (Score:4, Insightful)
But by learning to do it this way, he's not hostage to whatever configuration GUI is packaged with whatever distro he happens to use.
There's value in learning this stuff even if you don't *need* it.
It's a closed source thing (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is just a side effect of the relatively fragmented nature of closed source software. Vendors don't work together or allow anyone to modify their products because of IP issues, which is why you don't see distro-like entities re-packaging existing apps so they'll work together nicely and upgrade nicely, as happens with open source.
Also once something's installed, it's in the vendor's interests to be as in-your-face as possible to make sure you remember it's there. Hence all the loading-at-startup splash screens that you'll often see on a Windows PC, and update notifications... because every vendor wants to individually make sure that all users know about their latest offerings.
Re:Users read? (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe their job doesn't require them to print or use shares. Besides, forcing frequent password changes just uses up lots of yellow stickies.
Re:welcome to 2004, Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
Gnome has had notifications forever, too. People donÂt really understand what this proposal is about.
NO POPUPS EVER AGAIN --- PLEASE!!!! !!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously. I rarely use windows at all but the few times I do one thing really pisses me off completely
You're typing text and all of the sudden some crap application (windows or 3rd party) decides it wants
to popup either a splash screen or some alert dialog box.. and immediately the focus is taken away from
the text window and given to the dialog box...
Tell you what Windows assholes: Nothing you can popup is more important than what I'm typing. I don't
give a fuck whether Outlook wants to compact my inbox. Don't pop up when I'm typing. It's like slapping
the keyboard out of my hand.
Here's how notification and popups need to be solved. Have a short queue of icons representing popups
on the right upper corner of the screen. There can be a configurable message beep for each item (or one
beep for multiple items should a lot of them popup at once). The icons can't blink or otherwise try to
distract. If I click them the dialog box folds down Mac OSX style. I can configure it to expire dialog boxes
if I chose to ignore them. In that case the application gets told the dialog has been cancelled. Optionally
I can tell the application that I'm ignoring its popup and it is also then blacklisted for that dialog or for
any dialog for that matter.
The only time I can actually envision an exception to the icons not blinking or being distracting is if
the OS or an app is reporting a catastrophic event (about to lose power, disk errors etc.).
So I've been bitching about Windows but this is something I'd like anybody designing a desktop to
think about.
Re:KDE 4 anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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.
Hi, I'm Mark Shuttleworth.. (Score:3, Insightful)
... and I'm going to tell you about things that already exist, that other people are working on and make it sound like it's exclusive to Ubuntu.
Thank you for your time.