Validity of bugs whose solution involves adding an option somewhere

[Brandon Watkins]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Robert Bruce Park <
robert.park at canonical.com> wrote:

> On 12-12-14 06:43 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
>> What are people's thoughts in this?
>>
>
> I have absolutely fallen in love with the idea of hiding advanced options
> in gsettings (ie, define a gsetting to control the behavior, and then don't
> expose *any* UI for controlling that option).
>
> * Average users get a very simple, streamlined interface that isn't
> complicated by myriad options.
>
> * Advanced "power" users get to be fussy and have all the control they
> want over program behavior.
>
> * Options are configured with a standard UI (eg, dconf-editor), so power
> users get a consistent experience here, and you don't need to add any
> complex option UI to your own program.
>
> * gsettings schemas allow you to write descriptions of what the options
> are, so it displays the documentation right inline and doesn't require
> anybody to refer to any manuals that may or may not exist.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-desktop mailing list
> ubuntu-desktop at lists.ubuntu.**com <ubuntu-desktop at lists.ubuntu.com>
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/**mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-**desktop<https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop>
>
Yeah, this is what elementary os luna has been doing with some of their new
apps. For a good example: pantheon-terminal. Nice easy to use interface
with no options exposed, but there are plenty of options in dconf for it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-desktop/attachments/20121214/b6fab5b8/attachment.html>