Logout dialog

[Who]

On 3/2/06, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> > ...
> > My Dad frequently stumbles over choosing between plain "log out" and
> > "switch user", especially when somebody else happens to want to use
> > the computer as he has finished.
> >
> > Since locking the screen already has switch user functionality and
> > switching users already has locking the screen functionality, wouldn't
> > it make sense to merge switch user into the "Lock Screen" item in the
> > System menu?
>
> That would solve your father's problem, but at the expense of making
> switching extremely difficult to find. I rather think the item needs to
> be renamed to express the idea that it's *temporary* switching. "Switch
> User" is awful, awful wording.


I agree,  the wording isn't great. I think also that  the whole idea is
difficult because it isn't obvious how to get back to the original user:
could we add a dialogue on switching saying 'this will keep your current
session running and allow another user to log on as well. In order to return
to this session log out of the new one or push ctrl+alt+f[x]"

Also, I notice when you log out of a second user session the lock screen (or
unlock screen) dialogue only appears when you move the mouse - I thought it
had crashed first time round...

snippety snip

> ...
> > As even an advanced user, I was stumped as to what the difference was
> > between "Sleep" and "Hibernate" before I googled. Could "Hibernate" be
> > renamed to "Power Down (hibernate)", "Sleep" to "Standby (sleep)", and
> > "Shut Down" to "Full System Shut Down". Or something like that? Users
> > should normally just hibernate, and I think this name change would
> > make that obvious.
>
> In the medium term, the difference between "Sleep" and "Hibernate"
> should be abolished by letting Sleep suspend to disk *and* to RAM. So
> if you have power, waking up works quickly; and if you lose power for
> any reason, waking up still works. (This would also lessen the need to
> maintain lists of hardware for which the "Sleep" command should or
> should not be available.)


I think tooltips to explain the options would allow the interface to remain
clean. It _definitely_ needs to be clearer which option does what - my
Breezy-endowed family will struggle with this (and given that sleep does
some nasty stuff here probably have an unpleasant experience)

In the long term, the difference between "Sleep" and "Shut Down" could
> be abolished the same way: the computer could automatically turn itself
> off once it had been sleeping for a configurable period.


I think we still need a direct shut down option to ensure people can reset
everything, rather than find they thought they were shutting down but
application x is still doing weird behaviour y like it was before

I don't really know the policy for snipping signatures, sorry

Who

- --


Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEBkz36PUxNfU6ecoRAtdlAKCL5HH1rcg/ZOnFbRz21nLT4PaShgCg0GlX
pYymUWEghanW7BOjPx+E4CA=
=Hvz/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop at lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-desktop/attachments/20060302/0ca13a5f/attachment.htm