cocoaforge

zac wrote:the applications can be more intelligent about posting notifications in flood situations.

Sure, but I think Growl also needs to protect against applications which don't.

But to me the preferences should make sense to her if she ever needs to change something. I'm sorry, I'm not going to agree with you about software design. We need to make Growl easier to use, and doing what you are asking for will not accomplish that goal. Not to be argumentative, but to help me u...

The "we need to keep this out of the hands of dumb people" is a poor argument for leaving a feature that more technically savvy people greatly desire. [snip] If you didn't have this issue, would you even want a pref for it? No, you wouldn't. [snip] imho it's something that's just silly to...

It seems like a useful feature that can guard against filling the screen with alerts no matter the source. If such a limit is added (for example, either a maximum number of simultaneous on-screen alerts or a maximum amount of screen real estate, such as "one column") with any sort of reaso...

It may be a good practice for each application to have its own notification limits, but I think Growl itself is the logical place to enforce an absolute limit on the number of notifications displayed at once. It makes sense to have this supported in one central place, and it is the only way to limit...

I had iStumbler running at a conference, and was deluged with notifications of 802.11 networks, Bonjour services, and the like. Even though I have growl set to only display notifications for two seconds, my screen was instantly totally filled with alerts, and new ones appeared faster than the old on...