I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. If you reread my post, you will see that I'm trying to show a pattern of Gnome 3, where developers have either:
- broken long standing UI concepts
- applied wrong UI concepts to essentially a desktop OS
When I say "nobody is listening", I mean, nobody that is part of Gnome development group is providing a way out of these errors.
So, when you say in your reply that many things are configurable in relation to windows minimisation (and other things) - that is completely beside the point. There, I was really just pointing out, as a sidenote, that on a system where trivial customisations like rearranging of icons in impossible, somebody found it necessary to provide an option for a concept that has been all but butchered. The irony.
You may say that these things are my opinion. Maybe you see them that way. But it is a fact that many other desktop OSes (including previous versions of Gnome) use these concepts. And for a reason - users have been familiar with them for years and they work. Gnome 3 decided to break them, for reasons best described a "philosophical".