GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 709566
Add option to disable the hotcorner
Last modified: 2015-03-07 10:08:18 UTC
Firstly can someone please mark this to UI review because I wasn't able to work out how to do it :) What I am requesting basically is to enable certain core options in gnome-shell to be configurable either via gnome-tweak-tool or gnome-control-panel, but leaning towards gnome-tweak-tool to be closer aligned with the existing theming options in there. These core gnome-shell configuration options I see including but not limited to the following options: 1. Activities hot corner, changing text, enabling an icon or both 2. Padding in the top panel for both left and right corners of the panel for icons and text 3. Message Tray, barrier location (default, left corner, right corner), and height and icon size and whether the message tray pushes windows up (default), or just pops up 4. Aggregate menu - add\remove options from a list and allow custom entries There are currently 2 extensions available to achieve 1 & 2 in the above list (Activities Configurator & Horizontal Spacing extension) the latter is not listed on the extensions website yet as it requires a change to enable it to work in 3.10, and another extension (written by zzat on request) to do PART of option 3 above, namely to move it to the bottom right corner. What I am proposing is that along with the 4th option, is to write a consolidated extension that enables all of the above in 1 extension, or to have these options included in the core gnome experience. I have support of the maintainer of the gnome-tweak-tool, and from some of the owners of the above extensions to consolidate and include support for these options in the gnome-tweak-tool UI, but this may or may not be the best way to include support of these options. Being able to change certain core features of gnome-shell without hacking code, installing (in the above case 4 separate extensions) to enable changing certain functionality, along with hacking code to achieve the rest, is not an ideal situation to have for the general user. Not to mention that these options are only available if the owner of the extension has the time or inclination to update the extension, in which case it falls back to hacking code, which as of 3.10 no longer works to change the location of the barrier for the message tray, and required an extension to be written specifically to achieve this. I'm not talking about including options that legitimately should be handled through extensions or themes (like adding places to the top panel, or changing the location of the top panel to the bottom) etc. Just configuration options for what are core areas of gnome-shell that cannot be changed or configured currently without hacking code or having extensions written to monkey patch code to enable some of the functionality that a properly coded configuration option would and should include. As some of these extensions already exist then we have already got the code required to implement these features, and have the support of the gnome-tweak-tool to enable inclusion within the UI for these options, hence the suggestion of this option. But ultimately it would be nice to see this in the core gnome-shell experience. Just about every OS out there allows configuration of core components of the OS, and for gnome shell the core components include the activities area, top panel, aggregate menu (in 3.10 or user menu in <=3.8), and the message tray, and I feel these have the largest impact on the default user experience within gnome-shell.
(In reply to Peter from comment #0) > These core gnome-shell configuration options I see including but not limited > to the following options: > > 1. Activities hot corner, changing text, enabling an icon or both Disabling the hot corner is the only item that I would consider. Changing the appearance, (lack of) branding or even *meaning* of the activities button is just way off (in particular *not* having an icon in the activities button was a conscious decision). > 2. Padding in the top panel for both left and right corners of the panel for > icons and text No. If users really want to tinker with some whitespace, they have options to do so. No sane application offers preferences to change the padding/spacing for (some of) its elements, and neither should gnome-shell. > 3. Message Tray, barrier location (default, left corner, right corner), and > height and icon size and whether the message tray pushes windows up > (default), or just pops up Only the way the tray is brought up looks like it might possibly make sense as an option. However the message tray is gone in 3.16 anyway ... > 4. Aggregate menu - add\remove options from a list and allow custom entries So besides making existing entries configurable and blowing up the test matrix, we should also invent a protocol to make it extensible (without using *extensions*)? > I'm not talking about including options that legitimately should be handled > through extensions or themes (like adding places to the top panel, or > changing the location of the top panel to the bottom) etc. Just > configuration options for what are core areas of gnome-shell What are core areas that need configuration and what are not is up for debate - we would certainly say that the parts that should be configurable are covered by the existing options (what applications are shown permanently in the dash? what keyboard layouts are in use? which apps are allowed to show notifications? which provide search results? should the clock include date/seconds? how should workspaces behave? ...). I'm of course not saying that we will never-ever add another option again. But a lot of this bug reads like a very generic "please add options" request, which won't happen "just because". Of all the tweaks mentioned, the only one I can see us consider adding is a switch to disable the hotcorner: Many users love it and have made it an integral part of their workflow, others are used to access menus by throwing the pointer to the top edge and moving down and find the corner extremely irritating. There's not really a middle ground there, nor is either workflow right or wrong, so adding an option could indeed be appropriate. Renaming the bug accordingly.
... and there is apparently an older bug around asking for the ability to disable the hot corner. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 688320 ***