After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 115748 - Redesign emblems prefs page
Redesign emblems prefs page
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 534297
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: Preferences
0.x.x [obsolete]
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Nautilus Maintainers
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-06-22 21:33 UTC by Reinout van Schouwen
Modified: 2008-09-06 10:31 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: Unversioned Enhancement


Description Reinout van Schouwen 2003-06-22 21:33:46 UTC 
See also discussion on
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2003-June/msg00292.html

The emblems prefs page is not well designed. It makes the user scroll to
view all emblems (also a result of the non-resizability of the prefs
window), but what's more, it lets the user check a arbitrary amount of
emblems for one object. That makes no sense IMHO.

"I can't think of a good purpose for >2 emblems on one object. They
will start to overlap and it becomes a mess anyway. However it allows me
to check them all if I would want to.

Alternate proposal: model the emblems page after the desktop background
dialog. Have two buttons with either an emblem label on it or a label
'click here to select an emblem'. Accept icons that are dragged on either
button as a new emblem. The icon selector (a customized fileselector or
nautilus view??) will of course be resizable. Problem solved. =)"
Comment 1 Reinout van Schouwen 2007-08-07 21:30:26 UTC 
Still valid.
Comment 2 Cosimo Cecchi 2008-09-06 10:31:39 UTC 
Hi Reinout,

I created a "tracker" bug some time ago for discussion on this topic. As the other bug has dependency tracking and more comments than this, I will close your as a dup, even if it's older :)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 534297 ***