Version: unknown (using KDE 3.5.6, Gentoo) Compiler: Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu OS: Linux (x86_64) release 2.6.17-gentoo-r8 First, the functionality would basically be the same but UI would indicate function. Simplest version of this idea is the have tooltip indicate function either Close (window disappears, app remains, usually in the kicker) Quit (app stops running and has to be restarted) The ideal option is different icons for close and quit in the corner. Close icon would remain the 'x' Quit icon would be the circle with a vertical line in the center, the current standard. People will still know that the corner icon defaults to "quiting" but will have feedback what will happen. The icon would default to quit, since this is the most common use. If there is an easy way to check for a corresponding kicker icon, then it would automatically use the close button instead. Otherwise programmer indicates if button closes. Also note that once people get use to the quit icon But this idea requires UI to indicating function and not following tradition. KDE 4 is an ideal time to add it. Or if that is too radical. Create a new icon and name for minimizing to the sidebar. This way people have a visual clue that the program will not close (quit) when they press the corner button - the expected behavior. Finally, all 'close' items in the first menu should be changed to quit since that is what is happening - you are *quitting* the app.
Confusing bug report, not sure what to say, please explain beter. maybe some pictures will help.
Created attachment 30281 [details] quit button example This is a quick mock up of what a kwin quit button would look like.
Created attachment 30282 [details] Krita sub-menu Notice here there is both a close button and a quit button.
First, I have a better idea... When one thinks about it, the function being performed is a special minimize (to kicker). Thus my new idea is to use a new {symbol} to indicate that the app will be moved to the kicker. For example, Amarok, in the upper right corner (Kwin, not Amarok) is the {symbol}. Instantly the user will realized, different icon, different function, and an association will be made. In addition, there will be two entries under the File menu, like in Krita, one with the {symbol}, move to kicker, and one with quit. And this time quit means quit. --------------------------------------- If you are interested, and explanation of what I was trying to say. From a design perspective, does 'x' mean quit or close or move to kicker? at present the 'x' in the upper right corner does two things, "close" app, the default action, which actually means quit, and move to kicker. There is no way for the user to distingish between the two actions. so you have press "X" | ->--- quit app complete | or->--- close app to kicker, or background Ideally, using the symbol of a circle with a disconnected vertical line would indicate quit. The Krita sub-menu does exactly this. I know that quit ends the program and close removes the current picture. Yet, if I press quit in Amarok, it moves the app to the kicker. The original idea was to use the quit symbol to mean, well, quit and the 'x' to mean close. Yet, this is too radical for the real world
Yes, you make an excellent point. However, since the icons already exist, this isn't an artwork issue. Also, please note from your description that there are actually three possible actions: close window suspend program quit program We can use the same icon for #2, & #3 because the user doesn't have a choice between them. OTOH, should we have three icons to make it clear to the user what will happen?
Actions are - Close the data (you have multiple files open, you just close the one of them) - Close window (you have only one file open, you close the window) - suspend program (keep it running but hide it) - quit program (remove it's data from memory etc) This is littlebit same as functionality on Mac OS X. When you click the X on the windowdecoration, the application is closed but keeped runnin in the Dock. We do not have Dock. Altough I have planned something similar. http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/KDE+4.3+new+plasma-panel?content=96882 The application would be kept running and after "exited" the application, the icon could be leaved to the toolbar if it is configured to stay there. So you would get the functionality from Mac OS X (and windows 7 has that now too btw). Still, I like the current way, run, minimisize or close/exit. The icon should be more clear if this is done. It should be arrow down. arrows tip touching the horisontal line. This would inform the user that application is kept runnin on toolbar.
I agree with this bug report 100%: it is often confusing about what will happen when the user clicks the X icon. However, I do not think that proposed Quit icon should replace the Close icon, but supplement it. That is because the Quit icon is very foreign and breaks current desktop environment design that is common across all desktop environments. Therefore, the apps that have a Quit button will also gain a Close button on their windows, which is often what the user wants anyway.
I am not sure that, visually, this is a good move. Instead of changing the icon, it could be best to change the text from the hover message over the icon. Instead of saying just "close", the dialog can say "close application" or "quit application". My reasoning behind it is mostly from what the industry does. The industry seems to have settled on the same X. I would say that some, like Macs, just have colors instead of images or icons.
A challenge I foresee is that the window manager draws the close button, and it would need some way of knowing that the app plans to stay running (presumably with a system tray icon or something) when the close button is clicked, so that it could re-draw the close button or do something else to indicate this to the user.
We do not have enough information from clients to implement this.