The continual problem with items changing within the desktop environment is very annoying. I've even booted up after shutting down from a perfectly good DE and found that there were no panels. I had to run xfce4-panel from the command line to get them back. It would be very good to have all settings centralized into one place, and able to be made unchangable. "Centralized" means not having desktop, appearance, windows and other settings under different managers. There should not be more than one place where these things are handled. Also, settings are settings, and there is no need to have separate GUI's for each section of the environment. Only one GUI interface is needed for all of them. The existing Settings Manager is not an interface; rather it is a folder view of 17 applets. That's not a manager; that's a folder. "Made unchangable" means not allowing any function, process or mechanism to affect changes without the user's use of the central manager. Also, the groupings could be inproved. There are at least two different places where mouse, keyboard, and icons are found. There is even one applet that contains within it a tab for "Settings". There is also an applet named "Accessibility", and a tab in another applet with the same name. The same for "Workspaces". Those are examples of being redundant. In all this there is no settings for the mouse wheel, or any help when one selects that button anywhere. IMHO, I beleive that the whole settings consideration be reworked and reorganized. This one of the very most important utilities in any desktop environment. Thank you.
Please don't touch the default assignee settings if you don't know what you're doing. Feel free to start writing code; this is a big job.
(Er, sorry, you didn't touch the assignee, you just didn't use the right component.)
Yes, it is confusing to use this particular bugzilla implementation. It is the hands-down most non-intuitive interface I've ever used, so I can understand your confusion. I know I can't figure it out. (By the way, apology accepted.) In any case, I'm not a coder. What I am, however, is one of the very best software design directors available. And that is something that coders need desperately. Xfce is no exception to the fact that good leadership is badly needed. Hence the feature improvement request. What I don't understand is how programmers start down these bad paths in creating a simple interface. It is almost as if it is all a patchwork of bits and pieces of code brought together in a poor manner. And yet, it is so easily fixed. Oh well, if anyone needs my design help on this, I'm always available.
(In reply to comment #0) > The continual problem with items changing within the desktop environment is > very annoying. I've even booted up after shutting down from a perfectly good > DE and found that there were no panels. I had to run xfce4-panel from the > command line to get them back. It would be very good to have all settings > centralized into one place, and able to be made unchangable. The "no panels" problem probably is a bug in the panel, not in the config storage backend. We already have a centralized settings backend (xfconf), so obviously that is irrelevant to this issue. A centralized settings manager GUI won't help in avoiding this problem either. > "Centralized" means not having desktop, appearance, windows and other settings > under different managers. There should not be more than one place where these > things are handled. Also, settings are settings, and there is no need to have > separate GUI's for each section of the environment. Only one GUI interface is > needed for all of them. The existing Settings Manager is not an interface; > rather it is a folder view of 17 applets. That's not a manager; that's a > folder. So, first of all, this is a problem that affects almost *all* components of Xfce. So it's not something you file as a request in a bug tracker. It's something you discuss on a mailinglist. So maybe we should take this to xfce4-dev@xfce.org to be more productive. With so many configuration options, you will *always* end up with categories for these options or with a hierarchy of options. We have a mixture of both. The main reason why we have settings split across many dialogs is because of the modular architecture of Xfce. You can run the window manager without the rest, you can run the file manager without the rest and so on. Consequently, we don't force people to install everything together and that's why you only get to see those dialogs for which you have applications installed. This simply is the easiest way to do it. Last year, I hacked up support for "embedded" dialogs, something you can see in this video: http://lunar-linux.org/~jannis/videos/xfce/xfce4-settings-manager-20080912-2.ogv This hasn't made it into 4.6 because some of our dialogs have a width/height ratio of 4:4 or even 4:5 instead of 4:3 or 5:3 which is needed for this concept to work properly. I wouldn't mind simplifying the settings dialogs, making them more consistent. But merging e.g. the keyboard settings won't be easy as they belong to different applications (for valid reasons). > Also, the groupings could be inproved. There are at least two different places > where mouse, keyboard, and icons are found. There is even one applet that > contains within it a tab for "Settings". There is also an applet named > "Accessibility", and a tab in another applet with the same name. The same for > "Workspaces". Those are examples of being redundant. Not entirely, for the reasons described above. The keyboard shortcuts for launching applications are monitored and executed by a different application than the window manager shortcuts. Those cannot be merged easily. (In reply to comment #3) > In any case, I'm not a coder. What I am, however, is one of the very best > software design directors available. And that is something that coders need > desperately. Xfce is no exception to the fact that good leadership is badly > needed. Hence the feature improvement request. And I am one of the world's finest software developers. There's only one problem: like you, I have little evidence for that and even if I did, it wouldn't matter. I'm happy that, in open source, titles and certificates don't count. The only thing that is valid is good argumentation, so *please* put don't try to impress anyone with your reputation. You'll quickly be marked as arrogant and incompetent otherwise. > What I don't understand is how programmers start down these bad paths in > creating a simple interface. It is almost as if it is all a patchwork of bits > and pieces of code brought together in a poor manner. And yet, it is so easily > fixed. If you are such a good software design director, as you say, you should've heard of how software evolves over the years and design-once-use-forever thinking is highly unrealistic. Xfce has existed for more than ten years and while the settings storage has been redesigned several times (e.g. mcs -> xfconf for 4.6), the settings dialogs GUI has not been changed *that* much lately. We're open to suggestions and improvements (to be proposed on xfce4-dev@xfce.org if they are of general nature) a "I don't understand how you programmers could make such a mistake" attitude won't get us anywhere. Ivory towers, anyone? > Oh well, if anyone needs my design help on this, I'm always available. We can always use feedback on our GUI. Feel free to create mockups and concepts for an improved settings manager on the mailing list in order to start a prosperous discussion.
> The only thing that is valid is good argumentation, And even better: elegant code that implements a good idea. > so *please* don't try to impress anyone with your reputation. You'll > quickly be marked as arrogant and incompetent otherwise. Yep, that was my first reaction. I know some really great software design managers and directors. One component of that greatness is a sense of humility and respect for their peers that the reporter here doesn't seem to have. Anyway, I'm not expecting anything. Sounds like just another complainer who doesn't really want to do any actual work. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
KitchM, maybe you can create some concepts in glade3, the way you think we should handle this. Or a page on our wiki (wiki.xfce.org) or in this bug with stuff that should be merged/split, including arguments. You need no programming skills for that, should be the least you could do if you want to see some real changes.
Janis - Thanks for the response. Let me first state that your statement regarding the panel "bug" not having to do with this is clearly a misunderstanding of what I'm pointing out. The overall issue remains; the user doesn't know and couldn't care less where the settings are failing, but the fact remains that they are. My suggestion about a DE feature request, or enhancement as Xfce calls it, is to group all settings into one place (as they should be) and to make sure that they cannot be changed without conscious user input. That such is attempted at being done now in some piecemeal way is a poor excuse for doing it correctly, and certainly not the right way to design software. Of that there can be no argument. Besides, it ain't working! I know that there does not have to be many separate settings applets simply because you modularize. That is your misunderstanding of the options in programming. The proper way to handle that problem is to make the central settings manager note when other modules are added into the DE and make their settings available in that one centralized interface. I would have thought that programmers knew that, so you can imagine my surprise at your claims. (By the way, in watching your video, I thought it was to demonstrate the errors you found in the system. I must say that I am at a loss as to the point you are trying to make with your reference. It doesn't seem to apply to my report.) If things belong to different applications, as you assert, then there should be a clear explanation why that is. That way, and only that way, will the user be able to give thoughtful feedback to the coders. (My experience says that such is not the case, but I am willing to consider your explanation if it becomes available.) Believe me, the way to find out if someone is being arrogant or not is to try them and find out. That is the only sure way. I have found that most people don't like to have their shortcomings opened up to public scrutiny, and that is why there is such misleading and negative argument, and such fierce defense of buggy software. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Besides, free help is good. So try me already. What I was referring to was the obvious mistake in thinking what I described above; that the first mistake was modularizing the components without any way to bring them together in one place. That was a flaw from the beginning, and it is perpetuated all along each and every upgrade without ever addressing it. Such a simple, but damning, oversight, and evidence in and of itself. (By the way, if you are a fine software developer, why are you defending this poor software design. It is clear that good leadership is needed here, and that is what a director does. I still stand ready and available to help you and other designers/developers get the job done correctly. All you've got to do is ask.) What appears to be unclear to you is that long term evolution versus immediate perfection are not the only options here. The better one would have been to speak with an expert on this issue and made a better development map from the beginning. While I understand your desire not to be bothered with other peoples' viewpoints, I still don't understand why they overlooked that idea, and no one has explained it yet. Can you? I am not sure as to why you solicit support for your negative view, but I can imagine. I could say something similar, such as "Idiocy anyone?". You know, instead of being critical, you might have started with a better attitude. Maybe introducing yourself and stating who the heck "we" are. Second, don't try to tell a user who first spent a half hour trying to find the best way to make a suggestion that he did it wrong. You simply contradict the Xfce web site direction. Third, don't tell reporters to report somewhere else without explaining why that is preferred rather than the specified place. Fourth, clearly define what you mean by "mockups and concepts" and why the actual coders would have it in that particular format. Fifth, never tell someone to go to a mailing list when there are forums and bug reporting web sites for that very purpose. If the programmers can't use their own web site, the problem goes much deeper than I imagined. If you have something to add to support your position regarding my feature request (and only that), then I will listen. If not, stay the heck away from my report. Thank you. Brian, your two cents worth wasn't. I can't imagine how anyone can justify such a narrow-minded and ignorant opinion as you have made. Except perhaps in their own mind. Please note these facts: 1. You started out with an error, and you continue the practice. 2. I went out of my way to follow the direction given to users as to the preferred way to make feature requests. I didn't have to, but out of a desire to improve that which I have already publicly stated as being an excellent start to a great DE, I went to the trouble to clearly document the issue in the hopes that someone would care enough to fix the flaw. 3. I am not trying to impress with my reputation. That is meaningless. You should have already known that one can determine anything that way. Didn't you know that? 4. I am offering my services as (as I often do), at no charge and in the spirit of open source software design, to help with the project and simply stating, as anyone does when requesting a position, that I feel competent in doing so. Besides, you're the person who started that dialog. That is yet another place you should not have commented. 5. Only your misunderstanding states that I don't seem to have humility and respect for my peers. You are wrong there as well. And please note, you are not my peer. I actually do know of that which I speak. 6. It was very telling that after you made your first mistake you felt it necessary to cast dispersions on someone else. Funny, that wasn't in your first thoughtless submission. 7. By the way, I didn't use the wrong component. First, you don't know why I chose what I did. Second, you failed to document the difference. 8. If you had anything to do with the software flaws I've documented, it explains alot. You must be ecstatic now, knowing how wrong you are. From now on, please butt out of my report.
Nick, we experienced a "Mid Air Collision". Sorry we got out of order. Anyway, to reference your comment, thank you for it. I appreciate your suggestion. I once looked at Glade3, but was daunted by the idea of learning what appeared to be some sort of IDE all for a few moments work. Are you any good at that, and do you take dictation? Otherwise, I like the idea of the wiki. I am most familiar with that way of documenting ideas and the exchange of such. If I did that, where would you suggest I link it in? Thanks for your positive feedback, and I appreciate you also doing the "least you could do". If everyone did a little like us, what a difference it would make.
*sigh* I'm not going to hold your hand explaining how to best approach communication with open source development teams. Everyone who has commented on this bug has been an Xfce core developer for several years, so if you want us to butt out of your report, you have nobody left to listen to your request(s). This is what I extract from your messages (and I'm pretty sure you'll prove me wrong): - you're refering to yourself as one of the best software design directors out there, - you have little experience with bug tracking systems, - you have little experience with communication in open source software teams , - you don't know how Xfce works internally at all, - you're not interested in explanations on why things are the way they are, - you strongly think Xfce does something very wrong, - you want to direct somebody to do it right; and - you want the people investing their time in all this to back off and shut up. Well... good luck with that. Let me say two more things: I talked about the GUI mainly (because most of the settings are stored in a central system already) in my last comment and I didn't defend our design. In fact, I told you that there is room for improvement. This was not a misunderstanding at my end, these were (very brief) explanations for you to understand how the architecture of Xfce looks like. It is very easy to call yourself one of the finest in your profession. It is also very easy to make a high-level suggestion such as "change the settings system to not do something unless user doesn't explicitely say: I want this". For this whole thing to work, you need to consider three things though: 1) Do your homework. Investigate how things work internally and what needs to be changed for things to work the way you expect them to. Try to figure out how to communicate your ideas to the community in the best way. This differs from community to community. 2) Document your ideas, create a clear outline of what needs to be done, possibly including a roadmap. 3) Deal with the possibility of being disappointed. People might not do exactly what you want, especially not if they are volunteers and perhaps don't have the time, consider other aspects to higher priority or simply disagree with you. This can happen to you even if you are a professional. So, if you are still interest in this matter, I suggest you follow Nick's advise and create a wiki page on http://wiki.xfce.org/ to document your ideas verbosely. Cheers, Jannis
*Sigh* Jannis, you just feel compelled, don't you, and you just can't resist. Let me make it clear. No one asked you to hold my hand. I asked you to butt out if you don't want to help. Unlike Nick who was the only one who offered a sound suggestion. In detailed response to your points: -Yes, as far as you know. -Wrong -Wrong, and of no bearing on the enhancement suggestion. -Right, and it has no bearing since that is clearly not my point. -Wrong; you have yet to explain. -Wrong; I know and can prove it. -Wrong; I want to explain what needs to be done. It is up to coders to make it happen. -Wrong; I just want those, like yourself, who are doing nothing but attacking users to leave us alone and stop trying to tell us that something can't be done. We know what we want, how it should be and we like can-do people. I know what can be done. You don't. Which makes me wonder why you are here. If you were talking mainly about the GUI, you should have made that clear. Even going back over your text, I still don't see much of that. And actually, I can't find where you wrote that there was room for improvement. In fact, you pointedly defended the bad design based on your view that modular designed components could not be shared in any way for the purposes I propose. You have yet to explain how the architecture works in any meaningful way, except for the nebulous reference to modular design, which again has no bearing. Are you purposely trying to be misleading regarding your position? It seems easy for you to pretend you know how things should be. Well, welcome to the club. But it does make me wonder why, if you know, you haven't fixed them? Maybe you don't know. As to your last three items of your five (after stating "two more things"): 1- Pay attention to what I wrote above and try to keep up. 2- So far you've not been interested. Too bad you weren't more welcoming and less critical to visitors. 3- Possibility? Hell, you've disappointed me plenty. You seem to have plenty of time and use it to be highly defensive of criticism. But heck, I can handle it. I just deal in facts. I think I'll wait for Nick's response.
(In reply to comment #7) > Brian, your two cents worth wasn't. I can't imagine how anyone can justify > such a narrow-minded and ignorant opinion as you have made. Except perhaps in > their own mind. Perhaps your imagination is just lacking. > Please note these facts: > 1. You started out with an error, and you continue the practice. I don't believe I have. This "fact" of yours is a matter of opinion. > 2. I went out of my way to follow the direction given to users as to the > preferred way to make feature requests. I didn't have to, but out of a desire > to improve that which I have already publicly stated as being an excellent > start to a great DE, I went to the trouble to clearly document the issue in the > hopes that someone would care enough to fix the flaw. So, rephrased: "I started out attempting to avoid wasting people's time." What do you want, a cookie? > 3. I am not trying to impress with my reputation. That is meaningless. So why bring up your reputation if not as an attempt to impress? That's a bit of a contradiction. > You should have already known that one can determine anything that way. > Didn't you know that? Clearly I did, otherwise I wouldn't have called you out on it. > 4. I am offering my services as (as I often do), at no charge and in the spirit > of open source software design, to help with the project and simply stating, as > anyone does when requesting a position, that I feel competent in doing so. That's just not how open source projects work (at least not any I have experience with). You don't say "hey, I have these credentials, I want to do XYZ, please let me." You just go ahead and *do something* (though it's best to ask about it beforehand to make sure no one else is working on it), and allow people to judge your ideas and work based on their merits, irrespective of who your are or what your qualifications may be. > Besides, you're the person who started that dialog. That is yet another place > you should not have commented. This is my house. I comment when I please. > 5. Only your misunderstanding states that I don't seem to have humility and > respect for my peers. You are wrong there as well. Blanket statement backed up by... nothing. You've already shown by your posts to this bug report that you lack these things. Yes, that's my opinion, but it's my opinion here that matters. If I feel disrespected, you, as the outsider, are responsible for fixing that if you want me to listen to your ideas. If you don't, that's fine, but it seems like you've already alienated another of our developers, and I'd be surprised if more don't follow. > And please note, you are not my peer. I actually do know of that which I speak. Correct. At present, from the perspective of Xfce status quo, you're my inferior. Hell, if you want to sling around poorly-veiled insults with no basis, I can do the same. > 6. It was very telling that after you made your first mistake you felt it > necessary to cast dispersions on someone else. Funny, that wasn't in your > first thoughtless submission. The only "dispersion" I cast was in suggesting you used the wrong component, which was correct. As Jannis pointed out, most of the settings dialogs are embeddable into the settings manager, though for various reasons that's not enabled by default, due to problems with the settings dialogs themselves, having nothing to do with the settings manager. > 7. By the way, I didn't use the wrong component. First, you don't know why I > chose what I did. Second, you failed to document the difference. See above. > 8. If you had anything to do with the software flaws I've documented, it > explains alot. Ooh, was that another insult? Sorry, but I'm feel pretty secure with my record of contributions here, so you'll have to find a better way to troll. Ah, here's a crappy unrelated ad hominem attack too: "OMG, 'a lot' is two words; you must be dumb because you don't know that!" See, we can all play your stupid game. > You must be ecstatic now, knowing how wrong you are. From now on, please butt > out of my report. Sure thing. The higher blood pressure just isn't worth trying to understand your point of view. Jannis, I'd suggest you leave it alone as well; you're just gonna get yourself worked up over nothing. Nick, if you want to help him out, have fun, but please reassign this bug to yourself so I don't get any more of his crap in my mailbox.
(In reply to comment #8) > Nick, we experienced a "Mid Air Collision". Sorry we got out of order. Well I must agree with Brian and Jannis you are not doing your very best to make yourself popular, but because I think our settings could indeed be confusing for newcomers, I'm willing to ignore that and see what shows up out of all this. > Anyway, to reference your comment, thank you for it. I appreciate your > suggestion. I once looked at Glade3, but was daunted by the idea of learning > what appeared to be some sort of IDE all for a few moments work. Are you any > good at that, and do you take dictation? We [1] use glade for building our interfaces, for example the appearance dialog [2]. So examples in glade are more of less directly usable in the code. > Otherwise, I like the idea of the wiki. I am most familiar with that way of > documenting ideas and the exchange of such. If I did that, where would you > suggest I link it in? Create a new page at wiki.xfce.org/dev/system-wide-settings or something like that and write down your ideas. [1] http://www.xfce.org/about/credits#core [2] http://git.xfce.org/xfce/xfce4-settings/tree/dialogs/appearance-settings/appearance-dialog.ui
(In reply to comment #11) > Sure thing. The higher blood pressure just isn't worth trying to understand > your point of view. Jannis, I'd suggest you leave it alone as well; you're > just gonna get yourself worked up over nothing. Yeah, I'm backing out of this too. I never said improvements are impossible; in fact I completely agree with Nick. Let's see if there's more to it at mysterious KitchM's end than ignorance and buzz. We've seen many folks like you over the years, so to be honest, I'm not expecting anything out of it.
Brian, > Perhaps your imagination is just lacking. Of course it has nothing to do with imagination. But then you knew that, didn't you? > I don't believe I have. This "fact" of yours is a matter of opinion. It isn't a fact that settings change without user input? Of course it is. I reported that such happened. It is a fact. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with opinion. With your attitude all bug reports are just a matter of opinion. That viewpoint will never lead to helpfulness to anyone. > So, rephrased: "I started out attempting to avoid wasting people's time." What > do you want, a cookie? Wow, you really don't get it. That is the very definition of being narrow-minded. > So why bring up your reputation if not as an attempt to impress? That's a bit > of a contradiction. I've already explained that. Sorry if it was too deep for you. > Clearly I did, otherwise I wouldn't have called you out on it. You're not paying attention, or you would have caught the typo where it should have been "can't" instead of "can". > That's just not how open source projects work (at least not any I have > experience with). You don't say "hey, I have these credentials, I want to do > XYZ, please let me." You just go ahead and *do something* (though it's best to > ask about it beforehand to make sure no one else is working on it), and allow > people to judge your ideas and work based on their merits, irrespective of who > your are or what your qualifications may be. So which is it? Go ahead and do it, or ask first? Once you finally make up your mind then progress can be made. > This is my house. I comment when I please. Sorry, I thought it was freely given to all. I'll leave you in your little insulated world. You've finally shown your honest viewpoint. You should have started with that disclaimer at the beginning of "your" web site. > Blanket statement backed up by... nothing. You've already shown by your posts > to this bug report that you lack these things. Yes, that's my opinion, but > it's my opinion here that matters. If I feel disrespected, you, as the > outsider, are responsible for fixing that if you want me to listen to your > ideas. If you don't, that's fine, but it seems like you've already alienated > another of our developers, and I'd be surprised if more don't follow. So, let me get this straight. In your little world, once you stake out "your" space, everyone must know it is yours and yours alone, and they must some how intuit how you want to be approached. Why let's just all conform to your way. Well, your highness, I'm sorry you don't get what you want in this world. On the other hand, you could join the rest of us who do not attack individuals without first being attacked. You hadn't been attacked, but you felt it necessary to attack me. You could become part of the people who are welcoming to outsiders, instead of showing your appauling arrogance. You could become someone who listens to complaints with an open mind in the off chance that there might just be some validity to them, rather than pointing out perceived mistakes of the visitors whose comments your web site's existence seems to encourage. And by the way, your opinion is meaningless in my post. It wasn't requested and it doesn't fix the problem. > Correct. At present, from the perspective of Xfce status quo, you're my inferior. Hell, if you want to sling around poorly-veiled insults with no basis, I can do the same. As I already pointed out, yes, you certainly have been insulting, and you first attacked me. So don't try to climb up on your high horse about it. But I will finish it unless you want to ban me from your little sandbox. > The only "dispersion" I cast was in suggesting you used the wrong component, > which was correct. As Jannis pointed out, most of the settings dialogs are > embeddable into the settings manager, though for various reasons that's not > enabled by default, due to problems with the settings dialogs themselves, > having nothing to do with the settings manager. That was exactly the mistake I was trying to get you to see. No ignorant visitor can make a mistake if the error is on the part of the bozo who failed to explain things correctly in the first place. It had nothing to do with Jannis' comments since he hadn't yet commented. Don't try to use those comments as support for your false position. Your straw-man arguments hold no value to me. > See above. Exactly, see above. Duh. > Ooh, was that another insult? Sorry, but I'm feel pretty secure with my record > of contributions here, so you'll have to find a better way to troll. If I was the reporter, how can I be the troll? Actually, however, that name does fit your actions here. Maybe you should have stayed out to begin with. > Ah, here's a crappy unrelated ad hominem attack too: "OMG, 'a lot' is two > words; you must be dumb because you don't know that!" See, we can all play > your stupid game. Sorry for offending you with the typo. By the way, what game was that? > Sure thing. The higher blood pressure just isn't worth trying to understand > your point of view. Jannis, I'd suggest you leave it alone as well; you're > just gonna get yourself worked up over nothing. Nick, if you want to help him > out, have fun, but please reassign this bug to yourself so I don't get any more > of his crap in my mailbox. But you just had to include the private message here, didn't you. Isn't it possible for you to delete those things from your mailbox you don't wish to read? Another software flaw perhaps? Or is it just user error?
Nick, > Well I must agree with Brian and Jannis you are not doing your very best to > make yourself popular, but because I think our settings could indeed be > confusing for newcomers, I'm willing to ignore that and see what shows up out > of all this. It was never my intent to enter some popularity contest. I couldn't care less whether people like that think I'm wonderful or not. The issue is that I know what I've writing about and I am willing to enter into a discussion about the flaws and what I perceive as users' reasonable exasperation with them. I didn't think it would be necessary to do the whole diagram bit, but I will do my best. And gladly. At least you show an open mind, regardless of your personal feelings. I respect that. It is a sure sign of maturity and intelligence. I hope you can say the same for me. > We [1] use glade for building our interfaces, for example the appearance dialog > [2]. So examples in glade are more of less directly usable in the code. That is very good to know. (I wish that had been something that was clearly described in a prominent place on your web site, although it might not have directly helped me much.) Probably another good idea to support learning a little more about it. > Create a new page at wiki.xfce.org/dev/system-wide-settings or something like > that and write down your ideas. Thanks, I will get on that soon. And thanks for the links. That was thoughtful.
Nick, With regard to the wiki, I believe I've done all I can do at this point in time. I did take a look at Glade Interface Designer and was impressed with what appeared to be a very intuitive interface. However, when I tried to use it, the drag-n-drop functionality failed miserably. It would be different if there were some simple tutorial, but after trying a number of them, I was left with just searching for references to various component parts of the program on the 'Net. The problem was that I couldn't find the first thing about it anywhere. I was very disappointed because I had first thought it appeared to be simple to make the graphical overlay for you. Sadly, I guess that is not going to be the case. But still, the explanation and described layout I've left everyone at the wiki should be an excellent place to start. I hope that helps all the coders understand the simple parts that need to be addressed and gives the team some needed direction. I welcome any questions if any member of the team doesn't understand some part of my presentation. As I likely mentioned before, I am not a programmer. However, I do know what the end user needs, and that is what I have attempted to get across to the team. Please keep in mind that my personal beleif is that the Xfce DE has just about everything that is needed for a light-weight, but powerful, environment. IMHO less is definitely more. There really is nothing missing if we could only tie in those parts others have already supplied, and do it all in a more intuitive manner. By the way, sorry it took so long to get the wiki part done, but other matters kept interrupting my desire to finish it quickly. Thanks.
The dialog clearly failed, I'm closing this as not a single interesting and concrete idea emerged from this thread.