Re: [Usability]User Object Simplification?

[Nils Pedersen <n p sun com>]

<snip>

> One way to attack this, would be to upgrade applications
> to first class citizens on the desktop. In the same way as
> documents may have specific properties, an application
> object could be presented with for example:
>
> o Run
> o <<Application-specific options here>>
> o Repair/Reinstall
> o Uninstall
> o Remove/Hide (from menu, panel...)
> o Properties (command-line, preferred icon, keybinding...)
>
> An application is not the same as an executable file. In
> the case of Mozilla, for example, several applications (mail,
> web browser) share the same executable. In other cases
> several applications are installed in the same installation
> package. Removing one application from the package, should
> not cause the other applications to stop working. The physical
> file removal should only happen once all applications
> depending on a single installation package have been removed.

I think this is a good argument for exposing applications as first
class objects. And to a certain extent we kinda do it already today - 
but not with the rich interaction model you describe.

> An application is not the same as a launcher. Launchers are
> copied across menus and panels, and so they may have
> different settings in different places. Removing one launcher
> does not remove all other launchers to the same application.
> Launchers also have few object-like qualities, and
> specifically do not allow uninstallation.

However, if a user removes the application then its 'launchers'
(including those not created by the app) should also be removed.

Similarly, if a user moves a document/file, then the MRU file list
should be smart enough to track its new location.

Nils