![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Dock (computing) page were merged into Taskbar. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the Notification area page were merged into Taskbar on 2019-10-22. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Perhaps the Acorn RISC OS 'taskbar' should be mentioned -- it was a grey panel at the bottom of the screen, that displayed the icons of running programs along with a 'main menu' (Acorn logo'). Not identical to Windows' taskbar, but very similar and predates it by several years. 86.131.35.35 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree! RISC OS is a great OS, still being developed after all this time too :) it's taskbar is certainly worth some info about, possibly with images, especially as it predated windows 95 and possibly had some small influence on it. Xmoogle 01:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the information under the "Other desktop environments" is erroneous. The writer seems to be under the impression that the Kicker configuration that they have seen in some Linux distribution (or other *nix) which they describe is the only way Kicker can be configured. In fact the configuration they describe is quite exotic, and they unnecessarily compare the Kicker applets to their Windows equivalents.
It would also be nice to have some information on Mac OSX Dock's feature when a window is minimised and the GNOME Panel's 'window list,' unless this article is intended to focus on Windows Taskbar (if so that should be it's name). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.69.247.235 ( talk) 09:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
KDE's default is to have the taskbar in the kicker at the bottom of the screen! What kind of idiot wrote that its at the top? 212.23.126.20 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is free, feel free to edit it. Ivucica 08:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Jonnylinuxnerd 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ivucica 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
AFUSCO 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Dylansmrjones 17:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sir Fritz ( talk) 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Felipe Aira 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC) We should also have room here for some kind of opposition, if there's any.
Something I find incredibly annoying in Windows XP is that I have a bunch of icons near my clock that I don't want there. I've tried telling windows to stop loading them when it starts up through a multitude of ways but nothing works. It would be great if this article told people how to solve this problem. Doom jester 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. That's a system tray issue, and in addition to that, Wikipedia is not a users manual. (But here's a free tip: start->run->msconfig) Ivucica 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Why "shouldn't" Wikipedia have how-to's attached to articles? Or why shouldn't it become a How-to in itself? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.191.144 ( talk) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
would be nice if someone upload a standard gnome-panel(top and bottom) Praka123 02:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.191.144 ( talk) 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
For me, the systray is the stuff on the very right, just next to the clock. ("Unpliug or eject hardware", "language" ...) So isn't there a difference between Taskbar and systray? (As mentioned in the references, systray is a never used, but planned term, but i'd still call the most right stuff systray.) -- Saippuakauppias ⇄ 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose changing all these references to system tray as it is almost exclusively known as that these days (even by microsoft [2]) with a line about it's original name. I think this will be less confusing to the majority of readers. --neonwhite user page talk 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Emphsis is mine. Given that I've cited both a online and printed source from an acknowledged expert, and several other authoritative citations, and provided recent examples from those current and authorative sources (mainly the Windows Vista Help and Support Center); I'm going to restore my edit. I'll ask that before you undo the edit, that you provide a reason before that goes beyond the previously cited examples - which are not authortative and considered to be in error by the creators of the thing we are talking about. Charles Oppermann ( talk) 02:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Short answer: because they're wrong. ... One of the most common errors is to refer to the taskbar notification area as the tray or the system tray. This has never been correct. If you find any documentation that refers to it as the tray, you've found a bug.
"But why do you care? That's what everybody calls it now, may as well go with the flow."
How would you like it if everybody started calling you by the wrong name?
Summary: It is never correct to refer to the notification area as the tray. It has always been called the "notification area".
You keep saying that this is my opinion or my personal point of view, but I've cited several authoritative sources, including the recent product documentation, and one of the original developers of the technology that speaks directly to the issue at hand. I don't understand how can continue to say I'm making a "moral decision" on a "single POV"."You're are trying to make moral decisions on the use of language based on a single POV"
i won't speak to the question of what is currently the "official," "definitive," or "correct" name of the "system tray," but i can give you some history, if you're interested. i co-lead the microsoft team that designed the "cairo" user interface — the progenitor of the ui found in win95. in the earliest days of its design, i named the universally-accessible area at the bottom of the screen "the tray." i didn't particularly like the name, but at the time the area was for universally-accessible storage only. no buttons, no menus, just file-system objects. so it almost made sense. plus it was a bit of an in-joke — bill's nickname was "trey," so it caused a bit of a laugh. anyway, despite the mostly-crappy name and the fact that as the area's design progressed it included a space for menus and notification (among other things), the name — used to describe the area as a whole — mostly stuck. shortly before the cairo design was handed off to the win95 dev team, other names for parts of the tray began cropping up: "notification area," "command area," et cetera. when the central area of the tray began to include the representation of current "tasks" (running applications, or open windows), someone on the win95 team suggested "task bar," and some people began to use "task bar" (or "taskbar") to describe the entire tray. anyway, for what it's worth, that's the history. C-markma ( talk) 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
i suppose i should also comment on the raymond chen quotation above:
Why do some people call the taskbar the tray? Short answer: because they're wrong.
to be fair, i have not read chen's book, so i may be missing in this tiny excerpt a larger and more cogent argument <g>, but long before it was called the taskbar, that particular component of the user interface was called the tray. in fact, this was the name used the first time the component was disclosed publicly, at an early pdc years before win95 was released. so, really, what does chen mean by "wrong"? unless he's channeling some platonic microsoft marketing ideal (which is fine, as far as it goes), or advocating a time-line that begins at a rather late date in the component's history, i don't get it. C-markma ( talk) 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"in light of which one person's claims (Chen's) really can't be taken as having much authority"
How is the article "inaccurate?" Everything regarding this discussion has multiple references. Let me state it another way: If you think the article (which current says 'commonly - but incorrectly - known as the 'system tray') is inaccurate, then would you consider the Microsoft documentation on the subject to be inaccuracte? So if you sit down and press WIN+F1 and search on "taskbar" [2] and it references "notification area" - that's inaccurate? Are you really trying to suggest that company that creates the technology, makes it available and documents its is WRONG because it's using a term that you think is not common enough?it seems we have to be content to move on and let you leave readers with an inaccurate article.
Comments do not matter. They are not reliable sources. Wikipedia does not care about truth, only verifiability (by means of citations to reliable sources). Following the same guidelines, is it verifiable that the official name is "Notification area"? Yes. Is it verifiable that system tray is the wrong name? Yes. Is it verifiable that even though system tray is quite popularly used it is wrong and MS (who happens to be the ultimate authority for anything Windows) encourages not to use it? Yes. Thats it. Any contradiction would be violation of either WP:NPOV or WP:OR or both. But because it is also verifiable that people do call it system tray, we can include a note of it like "The last part of the taskbar is called notification area[Add ref that says its the official name], which is also incorrectly[Add ref that says this usage is incorrect] referred to as system tray[Add ref that says it is referred to as systray]." -- soum talk 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've come into this discussion fairly late and to be honest, it seems absolutely ridiculous to me to be going back and forth all the time about what the official name is or isn't because even Microsoft seems confused. It refers to the area as both the notification area and the system tray, sometimes in the same document [19] [20], so regardless of what the official name is, Microsoft seems happy to use both. If that's good enough for Microsoft, it should be good enough for us. That said, there are numerous references stating that the area is officially called the notification area. Here's another. There's really no reason the article can't, and for that matter shouldn't, state that the notification area is commonly called the system tray (even by Microsoft) but that the correct name is notification area. There are enough citations around to cover all of that and it should satisfy everyone who is serious about improving the article. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of bringing in OR and lot of convoluted text to fix up the POV, please point out how the POV exists in the first place. It says that the correct term is "notification area" and even though "system tray" is used, it is the one more popularly used. And with reliable citations. It fully documents both sides of the coin, without promoting any one view over the other. How the hell does this constitute an NPOV-violation? You edit deliberately engages in censoring the official point of view that the use is incorrect. Since MS is the official authority on anything Windows, the power to say whats correct and whats not rests with them, not us Wikipedia editors. Your edit introduces more POV than it removes. The official stance cannot be removed, if we are to achieve total NPOV. But we may qualify the other side a bit more, provided you can get reliable citations. -- soum talk 14:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, color me confused, but all the discussion here mentions the "system tray" as an alternate term for the notification area. Yet Aldaron says that's wrong? Powers T 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
References
Can we use the diagram in this article [30]. It seems to be a clear diagram of the elements of the taskbar but i'm not sure about the copyright issues? --neonwhite user page talk 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The patent for the taskbar as it shipped in Windows 95 appears to be US5757371, which they filed for on Dec 14 1995. For what it is worth it uses the words "notification area". Patent 5825357 appears to refer to Cairo and is a "continuation" of an abandoned 1993 application. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Registry entries and header files of SDKs consistently refer to it as "SysTray". From this I gather that while users have to call it "taskbar notification area", programmers are required to call it "SysTray".-- Jost Riedel ( talk) 14:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need a screenshot for each version? Most of the differences between the screenshots are really just differences in settings (some of them not even the default for the version shown):
The only meaningful difference is the button for hidden notification icons and the Aero Peek button. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 01:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone update the KDE3 screenshot and description to KDE4 please? I am too biased. Kicker is no longer used at all and is gone with the end of KDE3, Plasma is now being used (and the Panel plasmoid).
What microsoft calls the notification area is called the System Tray on NON-microsoft freedesktop.org platforms. http://standards.freedesktop.org/systemtray-spec/systemtray-spec-latest.html i.e. it's not at all incorrect to refer it to system tray on linux and othe fd.o platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.54.194 ( talk • contribs) 04:00, May 1, 2010
In the beginning/lead of the article it would be valuable with a screen shot of an entire desktop to illustrate what the task bar is and where it is located. -- Mortense ( talk) 12:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It would just make this article so neat and shiny. Thanks!
(Question, why doesn't Wikipedia auto-sign anonymous posts? doesn't it make sense that things SHOULD be that way? And also, why isn't there any "underline text" button in this form?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.191.144 ( talk) 20:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Would like to see some information integrated on the Microsoft taskbar patent http://www.google.com/patents/US5920316 98.127.132.122 ( talk) 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Windows 1.0 had a taskbar of sorts in which iconized programs would reside and I think it should be mentioned in the article. However, it wouldn't fit in the main Windows section, and it was never referred to as a taskbar, and its function wasn't exactly identical. So I propose creating a new section, "Predecessors". We would mention this feature in it, and move the implementations currently mentioned in "Other desktop environments" that precede Win95's taskbar to it. - Wikizzer ( talk) 23:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Why would the bar containing the charms be considered a type of taskbar? An appropriate place to discuss the charms is Windows shell. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 23:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Does the third party task bars really belong in the early implementation section? They seem to have been developed much later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.148.35 ( talk) 22:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I want to do some little changes to the order of pictures in this section of the article. I think it will be better if the Windows 95 taskbar will be the first from the top, then the XP, 7, 8 and lastly the 8.1 version at the bottom. Though the pictures may be on discussion, I might improve the article by reordering the pictures such that they show the chronological order of the taskbar versons. Is my suggestion better than the current version, or should it be retained? Japanese Rail Fan ( talk) 03:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Content overlap is significant. WP:SIZERULE also recommends a merger because readable prose size of Dock (computing) is at 2 KB. Taskbar article already has a section in it. Codename Lisa ( talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This article needs to be updated to include Windows 10... Quick Launch is rumored to be hidden by default in recent versions of Windows but can perhaps still be activated in tricky ways, maybe even in Win10.- 71.174.176.65 ( talk) 13:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed Notification area contained exactly the same text as Taskbar#Taskbar_elements so I redirected it here. Technically a merge I believe, except since the content was here, there was no content to copy into here. I am mentioning it here so there is some record of it on the target side. Sorry if I did it the wrong way, but WP:BOLD.
Add a section that mentions the taskbar status icons. 111.88.15.221 ( talk) 18:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Windows 11 has been released for a while; its taskbar being added to the Windows section would be good. Is this OK? (NB: I don't have an image of the Windows 11 taskbar) by Mariobros12345 ( T • C) 12:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
What provides interface to interect with a computer 39.50.75.224 ( talk) 05:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
یارب دا ارمان مو پوره کړه😭🙏🙏🙏 203.171.100.105 ( talk) 05:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Dock (computing) page were merged into Taskbar. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the Notification area page were merged into Taskbar on 2019-10-22. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Perhaps the Acorn RISC OS 'taskbar' should be mentioned -- it was a grey panel at the bottom of the screen, that displayed the icons of running programs along with a 'main menu' (Acorn logo'). Not identical to Windows' taskbar, but very similar and predates it by several years. 86.131.35.35 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree! RISC OS is a great OS, still being developed after all this time too :) it's taskbar is certainly worth some info about, possibly with images, especially as it predated windows 95 and possibly had some small influence on it. Xmoogle 01:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the information under the "Other desktop environments" is erroneous. The writer seems to be under the impression that the Kicker configuration that they have seen in some Linux distribution (or other *nix) which they describe is the only way Kicker can be configured. In fact the configuration they describe is quite exotic, and they unnecessarily compare the Kicker applets to their Windows equivalents.
It would also be nice to have some information on Mac OSX Dock's feature when a window is minimised and the GNOME Panel's 'window list,' unless this article is intended to focus on Windows Taskbar (if so that should be it's name). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.69.247.235 ( talk) 09:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
KDE's default is to have the taskbar in the kicker at the bottom of the screen! What kind of idiot wrote that its at the top? 212.23.126.20 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is free, feel free to edit it. Ivucica 08:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Jonnylinuxnerd 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ivucica 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
AFUSCO 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Dylansmrjones 17:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sir Fritz ( talk) 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Felipe Aira 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC) We should also have room here for some kind of opposition, if there's any.
Something I find incredibly annoying in Windows XP is that I have a bunch of icons near my clock that I don't want there. I've tried telling windows to stop loading them when it starts up through a multitude of ways but nothing works. It would be great if this article told people how to solve this problem. Doom jester 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. That's a system tray issue, and in addition to that, Wikipedia is not a users manual. (But here's a free tip: start->run->msconfig) Ivucica 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Why "shouldn't" Wikipedia have how-to's attached to articles? Or why shouldn't it become a How-to in itself? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.191.144 ( talk) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
would be nice if someone upload a standard gnome-panel(top and bottom) Praka123 02:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.191.144 ( talk) 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
For me, the systray is the stuff on the very right, just next to the clock. ("Unpliug or eject hardware", "language" ...) So isn't there a difference between Taskbar and systray? (As mentioned in the references, systray is a never used, but planned term, but i'd still call the most right stuff systray.) -- Saippuakauppias ⇄ 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose changing all these references to system tray as it is almost exclusively known as that these days (even by microsoft [2]) with a line about it's original name. I think this will be less confusing to the majority of readers. --neonwhite user page talk 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Emphsis is mine. Given that I've cited both a online and printed source from an acknowledged expert, and several other authoritative citations, and provided recent examples from those current and authorative sources (mainly the Windows Vista Help and Support Center); I'm going to restore my edit. I'll ask that before you undo the edit, that you provide a reason before that goes beyond the previously cited examples - which are not authortative and considered to be in error by the creators of the thing we are talking about. Charles Oppermann ( talk) 02:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Short answer: because they're wrong. ... One of the most common errors is to refer to the taskbar notification area as the tray or the system tray. This has never been correct. If you find any documentation that refers to it as the tray, you've found a bug.
"But why do you care? That's what everybody calls it now, may as well go with the flow."
How would you like it if everybody started calling you by the wrong name?
Summary: It is never correct to refer to the notification area as the tray. It has always been called the "notification area".
You keep saying that this is my opinion or my personal point of view, but I've cited several authoritative sources, including the recent product documentation, and one of the original developers of the technology that speaks directly to the issue at hand. I don't understand how can continue to say I'm making a "moral decision" on a "single POV"."You're are trying to make moral decisions on the use of language based on a single POV"
i won't speak to the question of what is currently the "official," "definitive," or "correct" name of the "system tray," but i can give you some history, if you're interested. i co-lead the microsoft team that designed the "cairo" user interface — the progenitor of the ui found in win95. in the earliest days of its design, i named the universally-accessible area at the bottom of the screen "the tray." i didn't particularly like the name, but at the time the area was for universally-accessible storage only. no buttons, no menus, just file-system objects. so it almost made sense. plus it was a bit of an in-joke — bill's nickname was "trey," so it caused a bit of a laugh. anyway, despite the mostly-crappy name and the fact that as the area's design progressed it included a space for menus and notification (among other things), the name — used to describe the area as a whole — mostly stuck. shortly before the cairo design was handed off to the win95 dev team, other names for parts of the tray began cropping up: "notification area," "command area," et cetera. when the central area of the tray began to include the representation of current "tasks" (running applications, or open windows), someone on the win95 team suggested "task bar," and some people began to use "task bar" (or "taskbar") to describe the entire tray. anyway, for what it's worth, that's the history. C-markma ( talk) 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
i suppose i should also comment on the raymond chen quotation above:
Why do some people call the taskbar the tray? Short answer: because they're wrong.
to be fair, i have not read chen's book, so i may be missing in this tiny excerpt a larger and more cogent argument <g>, but long before it was called the taskbar, that particular component of the user interface was called the tray. in fact, this was the name used the first time the component was disclosed publicly, at an early pdc years before win95 was released. so, really, what does chen mean by "wrong"? unless he's channeling some platonic microsoft marketing ideal (which is fine, as far as it goes), or advocating a time-line that begins at a rather late date in the component's history, i don't get it. C-markma ( talk) 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"in light of which one person's claims (Chen's) really can't be taken as having much authority"
How is the article "inaccurate?" Everything regarding this discussion has multiple references. Let me state it another way: If you think the article (which current says 'commonly - but incorrectly - known as the 'system tray') is inaccurate, then would you consider the Microsoft documentation on the subject to be inaccuracte? So if you sit down and press WIN+F1 and search on "taskbar" [2] and it references "notification area" - that's inaccurate? Are you really trying to suggest that company that creates the technology, makes it available and documents its is WRONG because it's using a term that you think is not common enough?it seems we have to be content to move on and let you leave readers with an inaccurate article.
Comments do not matter. They are not reliable sources. Wikipedia does not care about truth, only verifiability (by means of citations to reliable sources). Following the same guidelines, is it verifiable that the official name is "Notification area"? Yes. Is it verifiable that system tray is the wrong name? Yes. Is it verifiable that even though system tray is quite popularly used it is wrong and MS (who happens to be the ultimate authority for anything Windows) encourages not to use it? Yes. Thats it. Any contradiction would be violation of either WP:NPOV or WP:OR or both. But because it is also verifiable that people do call it system tray, we can include a note of it like "The last part of the taskbar is called notification area[Add ref that says its the official name], which is also incorrectly[Add ref that says this usage is incorrect] referred to as system tray[Add ref that says it is referred to as systray]." -- soum talk 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've come into this discussion fairly late and to be honest, it seems absolutely ridiculous to me to be going back and forth all the time about what the official name is or isn't because even Microsoft seems confused. It refers to the area as both the notification area and the system tray, sometimes in the same document [19] [20], so regardless of what the official name is, Microsoft seems happy to use both. If that's good enough for Microsoft, it should be good enough for us. That said, there are numerous references stating that the area is officially called the notification area. Here's another. There's really no reason the article can't, and for that matter shouldn't, state that the notification area is commonly called the system tray (even by Microsoft) but that the correct name is notification area. There are enough citations around to cover all of that and it should satisfy everyone who is serious about improving the article. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of bringing in OR and lot of convoluted text to fix up the POV, please point out how the POV exists in the first place. It says that the correct term is "notification area" and even though "system tray" is used, it is the one more popularly used. And with reliable citations. It fully documents both sides of the coin, without promoting any one view over the other. How the hell does this constitute an NPOV-violation? You edit deliberately engages in censoring the official point of view that the use is incorrect. Since MS is the official authority on anything Windows, the power to say whats correct and whats not rests with them, not us Wikipedia editors. Your edit introduces more POV than it removes. The official stance cannot be removed, if we are to achieve total NPOV. But we may qualify the other side a bit more, provided you can get reliable citations. -- soum talk 14:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, color me confused, but all the discussion here mentions the "system tray" as an alternate term for the notification area. Yet Aldaron says that's wrong? Powers T 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
References
Can we use the diagram in this article [30]. It seems to be a clear diagram of the elements of the taskbar but i'm not sure about the copyright issues? --neonwhite user page talk 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The patent for the taskbar as it shipped in Windows 95 appears to be US5757371, which they filed for on Dec 14 1995. For what it is worth it uses the words "notification area". Patent 5825357 appears to refer to Cairo and is a "continuation" of an abandoned 1993 application. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Registry entries and header files of SDKs consistently refer to it as "SysTray". From this I gather that while users have to call it "taskbar notification area", programmers are required to call it "SysTray".-- Jost Riedel ( talk) 14:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need a screenshot for each version? Most of the differences between the screenshots are really just differences in settings (some of them not even the default for the version shown):
The only meaningful difference is the button for hidden notification icons and the Aero Peek button. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 01:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone update the KDE3 screenshot and description to KDE4 please? I am too biased. Kicker is no longer used at all and is gone with the end of KDE3, Plasma is now being used (and the Panel plasmoid).
What microsoft calls the notification area is called the System Tray on NON-microsoft freedesktop.org platforms. http://standards.freedesktop.org/systemtray-spec/systemtray-spec-latest.html i.e. it's not at all incorrect to refer it to system tray on linux and othe fd.o platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.54.194 ( talk • contribs) 04:00, May 1, 2010
In the beginning/lead of the article it would be valuable with a screen shot of an entire desktop to illustrate what the task bar is and where it is located. -- Mortense ( talk) 12:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It would just make this article so neat and shiny. Thanks!
(Question, why doesn't Wikipedia auto-sign anonymous posts? doesn't it make sense that things SHOULD be that way? And also, why isn't there any "underline text" button in this form?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.191.144 ( talk) 20:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Would like to see some information integrated on the Microsoft taskbar patent http://www.google.com/patents/US5920316 98.127.132.122 ( talk) 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Windows 1.0 had a taskbar of sorts in which iconized programs would reside and I think it should be mentioned in the article. However, it wouldn't fit in the main Windows section, and it was never referred to as a taskbar, and its function wasn't exactly identical. So I propose creating a new section, "Predecessors". We would mention this feature in it, and move the implementations currently mentioned in "Other desktop environments" that precede Win95's taskbar to it. - Wikizzer ( talk) 23:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Why would the bar containing the charms be considered a type of taskbar? An appropriate place to discuss the charms is Windows shell. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 23:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Does the third party task bars really belong in the early implementation section? They seem to have been developed much later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.148.35 ( talk) 22:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I want to do some little changes to the order of pictures in this section of the article. I think it will be better if the Windows 95 taskbar will be the first from the top, then the XP, 7, 8 and lastly the 8.1 version at the bottom. Though the pictures may be on discussion, I might improve the article by reordering the pictures such that they show the chronological order of the taskbar versons. Is my suggestion better than the current version, or should it be retained? Japanese Rail Fan ( talk) 03:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Content overlap is significant. WP:SIZERULE also recommends a merger because readable prose size of Dock (computing) is at 2 KB. Taskbar article already has a section in it. Codename Lisa ( talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This article needs to be updated to include Windows 10... Quick Launch is rumored to be hidden by default in recent versions of Windows but can perhaps still be activated in tricky ways, maybe even in Win10.- 71.174.176.65 ( talk) 13:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed Notification area contained exactly the same text as Taskbar#Taskbar_elements so I redirected it here. Technically a merge I believe, except since the content was here, there was no content to copy into here. I am mentioning it here so there is some record of it on the target side. Sorry if I did it the wrong way, but WP:BOLD.
Add a section that mentions the taskbar status icons. 111.88.15.221 ( talk) 18:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Windows 11 has been released for a while; its taskbar being added to the Windows section would be good. Is this OK? (NB: I don't have an image of the Windows 11 taskbar) by Mariobros12345 ( T • C) 12:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
What provides interface to interect with a computer 39.50.75.224 ( talk) 05:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
یارب دا ارمان مو پوره کړه😭🙏🙏🙏 203.171.100.105 ( talk) 05:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)