1

Ok this is from one of my blog posts, but the post is extremely long so I'll try to summarize it and you can visit the link at the bottom for the extended version.

Removing The Cashews

Getting rid of the Cashews is primarily a cosmetic/usability change. The biggest issues are that it takes up space even when its unneeded, it does not look good, and it provides no benefit to the majority of plasma users. Removing the cashews would move access of configurations and changes to a right click menu (or other click/hotkey option) instead of the cashew on the panel or desktop.

Right Click To Lock/Unlock Desktop Widgets

The complete removal of the lock/unlock system in plasma would be one solution, but this would leave plasma desktop widgets in a weird position, since they would still need some system that would allow for them to be moved, resized, rotated, etc.. As contradictory as it may seem, I believe that in the case of desktop widgets it makes sense to keep the lock/unlock system in place, with only a few minor changes. The changes I'm talking about refers to the widespread effect that locking/unlocking the desktop has. Instead of it affecting the entire desktop, including things like which options are shown in the context menu, I would like there to be an alternating right click menu option that would allow for the locking or unlocking of your desktop widgets only. Since this seems to be a simple idea, but may be hard to explain, I made a couple mockups that show what my idea of the right click to lock/unlock the desktop widgets would look like.



Right Click On Panel To Change/Move Panel Widgets

Much like lock/unlock for the desktop widgets, the panel widgets still need some way to go from use mode to edit mode. The "panel settings" currently works really well at moving, adding, and removing widgets, but accessing the settings is put behind an additional layer of clicks with the locking/unlocking of the panel. Also, the cashew on the right or bottom of each panel takes up space when rearranging widgets and has no purpose for being shown after you're already in edit mode in the panel settings.

To fix these cosmetic and usability issues, plasma needs to remove the cashew from the panel completely and get rid of the lock/unlock options from the right click menu. Instead, the panel should be intuitive and have the panel in a "locked" state when in normal use, and only when in the panel settings should the widgets then be "unlocked". The panel settings can be accessed by right clicking anywhere on the panel and selecting "panel settings", much like they are now after the panel has been "unlocked". Here's how it could look if the cashew and the lock/unlock system were removed.



P.S. I also considered the removal of the "Remove this Panel" or other "Remove this .." options from the right click menu. It could be made to where you would have to be in the panel settings to remove a panel or widget, that way it could cut back on accidental deletions.

This idea was originally posted on my blog.
http://bsmith1012.blogspot.com/2011/06/ ... k-and.html

This is 3 independent ideas. Please post them separately.

Do not bother posting the one about removing the cashew, it will be marked as WONTFIX since plasma developers have repeatedly rejected requests to do so. Part of the problem is that it is possible to turn off the right-click menu on the plasma desktop, leaving you unable to get it back without the cashew. This will not be changed.

I also don't understand your first idea. How do you propose some add a widget to a locked desktop? Locking, by definition, means widgets cannot be moved. Adding widgets seems to defeat the purpose of locking. The same goes for adding a panel.

The third suggestion also does not make sense based on how locking actually works. Locking locks everything. What you are really proposing here is having the desktop locking and the panel locking be independent. But involved completely redefining what "lock" mean in plasma. You are changing lock from a global setting to a local one. Also, this idea is highly dependent on removing the cashew, which I already explained is not going to happen. You need to reconsider this idea in light of the fact that the cashew will not be removed.

If any of the ideas you post includes as a component the removal of the cashew I will have no choice but to mark the entire idea as WONTFIX, so please rework the ideas to not include this aspect. This is not my decision, it is the decision of plasma developers.

Please also keep in mind that plasma needs to work on systems other than the desktop, systems that may not have right-mouse buttons or mice at all.

I would like posting here alot more if you refrained from micromanaging everyones ideas and posts. These are three "Dependent" ideas, as I give my problem with the cashew and lock/unlock system and then give solutions for the 3 areas that are affected. When I brainstorm an idea it is rarely a simple "remove the cashew" idea, but a detailed thought out problem and solution that may require changing several different things.

Also, since when does seeing a discussion in the past about not changing the cashew mean that the cashew is forever off limits for discussion again? Is KDE not a community project? To me that would mean that nothing is off limits to discuss and potentially improve. Maybe with a well thought out problem and solution discussion and plenty of support, the developers or a new developer could make some changes.

This isn't the first time that you have shot down my posts. Since I labor over putting lots of time and effort into each of my ideas, your gatekeeping of ideas and discussion is really starting to bother me, because I then have to wonder about all the other ideas no one sees that you blocked or dismissed. As a former moderator on a different site, and a longtime follower of the KDE community, I would please ask that you try to encourage debate and new ideas more, instead of blocking or trying to change them. Even if something is an old idea, maybe bringing a new perspective or idea can start a fresh discussion that could lead to different decisions.

"Locking, by definition, means widgets cannot be moved. Adding widgets seems to defeat the purpose of locking. The same goes for adding a panel."

You're dismissing this idea because of preset ideas you have about what lock/unlock is. My whole idea is based around the concept that I want to CHANGE how the lock/unlock works. Instead of the full desktop locking/unlocking, it should be changed to be smarter. Don't think about what lock/unlocking does right now, instead picture your desktop as having widgets on it that are stationary until you unlock them. You shouldn't have to go through an annoying lock/unlock process to add a widget or panel, you just right click and select "Add .." and then you can drag the widget or panel to where you want it. Widgets could also be movable when you have the add new widget panel open, regardless of any lock/unlock, so that it works intelligently with the user, instead of against them. The current lock/unlock has turned into a system that get's in the way of the user and makes things more difficult without adding any real value.

"Please also keep in mind that plasma needs to work on systems other than the desktop, systems that may not have right-mouse buttons or mice at all."

Which in my blog I commented on. While I understand it's initial inclusion for plasma to be used as a touch device, forcing it on nontouch users is just as bad (or worse) than not having the support at all. With the creation of plasma netbook, plasma active, and kde mobile the need for the desktop plasma shell to force the use of touch options is unnecessary and should be at the most included as an option that could be disabled/enabled. The ability to set a hotkey for those with no right click (a very small minority of people) or to enable the cashews for them specifically would be a much better solution, instead of the argument "what about those %1 of users? you other 99% have to have it so we dont upset them!". I don't even mind having it as an option, but forcing it as the default for normal desktop users is just not well thought out.

There are policies in place about how we handle ideas on the brainstorm forum. They are not my policies, they are policies the entire administrative staff decided on. One of those is that we accept the decisions of KDE developers. If KDE developers say they aren't going to implement something, we have to accept that. We are not in a position to second-guess the developers. If you want to change their minds, you have to talk to them, not to us. Of course is still open to discussion, but this is not the right place for the discussion.

The same goes for posting multiple ideas per thread. This policy has been the same for years: if you can implement one part of the idea without implementing another, then they have to go in separate threads. That rule applies in this case. If we don't do this, ideas become unmanageable. What if part of someone's idea is implement and part isn't, what do we do? If someone likes part of an idea and another part, how do they vote? There is a reason why that is the only rule you see when you try to post an idea (that was not my idea), and a reason it is the very first thing you see when you try to post an idea. If we didn't have this policy the brainstorm forum would be totally unmaneagable. This place is hard enough to deal with when people follow the rules.

There is no reason why separating the panel locking mechanism from the desktop locking mechanism can't be implemented without hiding still-useless options on the desktop. These ideas are independent.

If you don't like the policies, you should post a brainstorm idea about changing them. But those policies were thought through very carefully looking realistically at issues like how this forum and the KDE development community interact (i.e. not very much).

Don't start attacking me just for following policies that have been in place for years. Either change the policies, or change the developers' decisions.

This isn't the first time that you have shot down my posts. Since I labor over putting lots of time and effort into each of my ideas, your gatekeeping of ideas and discussion is really starting to bother me, because I then have to wonder about all the other ideas no one sees that you blocked or dismissed.

Has it ever considered that there might be a reason that we put ideas in moderation before we let them through? It wasn't there in the beginning, it was added because we got so many ideas that were unusable that the brainstorm forum was rapidly becoming unmanageable.

Besides, there is nothing stopping you from looking at the list of invalid or wontfix ideas. Nothing disappears, the board keeps track of everything.

As for the rest, I would not reject ideas based on those issues, I was simply pointing out my own concerns. I routinely let through ideas I don't agree with as long as they are valid ideas. I probably could have made it clearer about that, but the fact of the matter is I never reject ideas because I disagree with them.

But if I am not getting the point of your idea, or how the parts interact, it might be worth at least considering that the idea is not written clearly. For instance, you never say anything about adding widgets when the desktop is locked. Your entire discussion of the desktop was related to whether options are visible or not. You gave no indication that the options would actually be usable.

While I understand it's initial inclusion for plasma to be used as a touch device, forcing it on nontouch users is just as bad (or worse) than not having the support at all.

Once again, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that this forum is any position to change developers' minds. Although the issue here would not affect the validity of the idea since developers have not clearly stated a decision on the matter, you can get hints about their stance, and that stance greatly affects the chance of the idea actually getting implemented.

Your idea assumes the stance is wrong, and just ignores it. However, any developer who holds that stance (as plasma devs do) is not going to look favorably on an idea that goes against that stance. It would be much more productive to get them to change the stance, or at least acknowledge the stance and how this interacts with it.

Your concerns may be valid, but this isn't really the place for the debate since few, if any, of the relevant developers will ever see it.