<div class="gmail_quote">On 7 September 2010 13:13, Anne-Marie Mahfouf <span dir="ltr"></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Most Picture Frame users have several such applets on their desktop and rotate<br>
them to get a visually improved desktop. The Picture Frame applet is probably<br>
the strongest use case in rotating widgets.<br>
I don't imagine using it without the rotation.<br></blockquote><div><br><div><br>
There are people reporting that this feature creates clutter and confusion, for little proven benefit. If the Picture Frame does take advantage of this feature, then keep it to this applet and remove it from the rest. <br>
<br>Better yet, create a dedicated interface (a special containment, or a mode to show it only when changing Preferences) to configure it when it's needed, and get rid of it when it's not. <br><br>In addition to manual direct configuration, this could also allow for some automated effects (for example create a random rotation for all pictures, or auto-rotate widgets to match acceleration sensors) that many people would benefit from without spending much time tweaking their desktop.<br>
</div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
When did we state we would give up on some options?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote>I think he refers to people like Aaron saying that KDE 4 would avoid micro-management preferences that choose between two equally problematic interfaces, trying to stick to one good design that works from the beginning.<br>
</div>