Users need to be notified of the state of their system at all times. For this reason, I think when shutting down or rebooting Plasma, after selecting to bypass confirmation screens, also needs to inform the user of the state of the system. This can be done with a fade out animation and a message in the center that says "shutting down" or "rebooting". That way the user is not "janked" out of the desktop so quickly and they can follow the progression of their actions through informative prompts. Something like this: https://imgur.com/a/SaYfCuS
If we did that, wouldn't it cover up or obscure any apps that need to show a "save your changes"-style confirmation dialog when the system asks them to quit?
Dear Bug Submitter, This bug has been in NEEDSINFO status with no change for at least 15 days. Please provide the requested information as soon as possible and set the bug status as REPORTED. Due to regular bug tracker maintenance, if the bug is still in NEEDSINFO status with no change in 30 days the bug will be closed as RESOLVED > WORKSFORME due to lack of needed information. For more information about our bug triaging procedures please read the wiki located here: https://community.kde.org/Guidelines_and_HOWTOs/Bug_triaging If you have already provided the requested information, please mark the bug as REPORTED so that the KDE team knows that the bug is ready to be confirmed. Thank you for helping us make KDE software even better for everyone!
(In reply to Nate Graham from comment #1) > If we did that, wouldn't it cover up or obscure any apps that need to show a > "save your changes"-style confirmation dialog when the system asks them to > quit? That might happen. I am not sure how this is implemented technically. However, what I see is that whenever the user goes to the shut down button, they click it and it kills everything immediately. There are currently no prompts asking the user to save. At least, that didn't happen for me. I would imagine that a more tactful way to do this is to allow the user to bypass any shutdown dialogs yet be warned/told that information can be lost or needs to be saved. With this report, I am speaking of a different state. When the bypassing is enabled, the user clicks shutdown and it bypasses the confirmation screen. However, it does this by immediately taking the user out of the system. Everything goes black and your system shuts down. My request is that this part could have an intermediate state where the user knows that the system is shutting down and didn't just go black suddenly.
(In reply to Andres Betts from comment #3) > That might happen. I am not sure how this is implemented technically. > However, what I see is that whenever the user goes to the shut down button, > they click it and it kills everything immediately. There are currently no > prompts asking the user to save. At least, that didn't happen for me. That's unusual. Can you confirm by opening a document in Kate or kwrite, typing some text, and then trying to shut down, reboot, or log out? The app should ask you if you want to save the changes.
This bug has been in NEEDSINFO status with no change for at least 30 days. The bug is now closed as RESOLVED > WORKSFORME due to lack of needed information. For more information about our bug triaging procedures please read the wiki located here: https://community.kde.org/Guidelines_and_HOWTOs/Bug_triaging Thank you for helping us make KDE software even better for everyone!
This is a legitimate request, so it's a shame you didn't respond to my last question and the ticket got automatically closed. Re-opening. We should indeed create some kind of "logging out..." effect so that the user knows what's going on. The challenge is not covering up any windows or dialogs that demand attention to ask the user something, such as the ubiquitous "Save your changes" dialogs that document-based apps will show. Not sure if the best place for this to be implemented would be Plasmashell (as with the logout screen) or KWin (as a systemwide effect). Starting with Plasma for now.
(In reply to Nate Graham from comment #7) > This is a legitimate request, so it's a shame you didn't respond to my last > question and the ticket got automatically closed. Re-opening. > > We should indeed create some kind of "logging out..." effect so that the > user knows what's going on. The challenge is not covering up any windows or > dialogs that demand attention to ask the user something, such as the > ubiquitous "Save your changes" dialogs that document-based apps will show. > > Not sure if the best place for this to be implemented would be Plasmashell > (as with the logout screen) or KWin (as a systemwide effect). Starting with > Plasma for now. I am so sorry Nate, I don't get updates about my own bugs for some reason. It's been like this for a long long time. I think I should have mentioned that we are talking about the desktop behavior when the user has enabled bypass shutdown screens or bypass reboot screens. So it's not the general behavior. Under this behavior, the user is not prompted about shutting down, for example, when they click shut down. It happens immediately. This is pretty cool for people ready to leave the desktop but it is also a bit radical in its behavior. I can confirm that under this behavior the system does "NOT" ask users to save. It shuts down without interruptions. Maybe it sends a TERM signal. This is why I say that even though this behavior is enabled, it should still warn users that they are shutting down or rebooting.
> I can confirm that under this behavior the system does "NOT" ask users to save. Sorry, I don't believe you. :) What happens if you open kate, type some text without saving, and then try to show down? One of the following things should happen: 1. Kate asks you to save 2. Kate quits immediately, and the next time you open it, it shows you the unsaved changes you had last time 3. Kate quits immediately, and the next time you open it, your unsaved changes were lost 1 is what I expect. 2 would be acceptable, but we can't rely on that at the Plasma level, since not all apps implement this behavior. 3 would be unacceptable. So which one is it?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 188476 ***