On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:29:13 +0200
Benedikt Meurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> A few, quick comments:
>
> > Show Sidebar: [t][f]
> > - Shows the sidebar or hides it.
>
> There's more about this, like what widget should be displayed in the
> sidebar.
>
> > Icon size: {large, medium, small}
> > - This should probably translate into different sizes for the different
> > views. Maybe have the actual pixel sizes hidden in a config file
> > eg:
> > iconview_size_large=128
> > listview_size_large=32
> > iconview_size_large=64
> > ...
> > This should keep the "powerusers" who want to actually control their
> > icon
> > sizes precisely happy while keeping configuration simple.
>
> I'm more in favour of using dedicated icon sizes (from the
> implementations POV). And adjusting icon sizes doesn't seem to be
> necessary IMHO. It sounds more like a hack to work-around badly choosen
> defaults. I'd say
>
> details/treeview - 22px
> iconview (vertical/horizontal) - 48px
> thumbsview - 128px
>
> is pretty ok for everyone.
Maybe. Then again, some people will find some of (eg: thumbsview) sizes too
large, and would want to see the more images at once when finding one, while
older people (like my great- aunt or grandfather - I've been teaching them
computers recently) will be squinting at the listview. Even if it doesn't make
it into the options pane, I think it should be a hidden option.
> Of course, we *can* make that an option as well. Indeed we can make
> pretty much everything an option, but that would violate the concept of
> simple and easy-to-use software IMHO.
>
> > Default Sort By: {Name, Type, Size, Modified, Owner, ...}
> > - For the ones that would have definite categories (type, owner), it
> > would
> > be nice to have an explorer-like grouping type (see
> >
> > http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/windows/2005/04/19/graphics/figure1.gif)
>
> That won't work with the default treeview widget. We'd need to write our
> own treeview, which is really something for Thunar 2.0 (not sure if we
> need this anyways, IIRC somebody suggested something similar for
> nautilus some time ago).
Yeah. I was sorta hoping it wouldn't be too hard to get the grouping to display
that way, but I wasn't holding my breath.
> > Directories Spring Open After <slider from 100ms to 2 seconds>
> > - Auto-opening directories like ROX. Makes DND easier.
>
> Hmhmh... sounds useful. Tho, dunno if it necessary to have an option for
> the time.
Maybe not. Maybe it should be a toggle, or a hidden option. I don't know, but I
definitely want the feature there.
> > Notable omissions:
> > - Single/Double click navigation: AFAIK, this is a global option for
> > GTK.
> > Thunar should follow it.
>
> Nope, there's no concept for this in Gtk. The applications have to add
> their own hacks to make single click navigation work. I.e., you can
> check nautilus to see why this is a bad idea. ;-)
>
> Since the rest of Gtk+/Xfce - atleast the parts that use the tree or
> icon view widgets - work solely with double click navigation, it is not
> very consistent and pretty confusing on first sight, to have single
> click navigation in a widget which is otherwise double-click only.
Ok. I thought I remembered some sort of global setting for it somewhere, I
guess I was mistaken. Well, I guess I agree that it shouldn't be an option,
either way.
> Maybe something for Thunar 2.0 with a custom tree view widget.
>
> > - Launch folders in new window: So far, Thunar doesn't seem to have a
> > very
> > spatial interface, and doesn't seem to be headed in that direction at
> > all. I see no added benefit. If someone wants a filemanager that is
> > spatial, I think they should use one designed that way.
>
> ACK. If somebody wants to open a folder in a new window, he/she can
> right-click -> 'Open in new window'.
That's why I put this in the "Notable Omissions" section.
>
> > I also wonder if it's a good idea to store per-directory preferences
> > (window size/position, view type, etc) in metadata if extended
> > attributes
> > are available. IMO, it would make for a nicer user experience.
>
> I have no clue about this. I also thought it is very confusing if one
> selects 'Icon view', then enters another directory and the file manager
> switches to 'Tree view' and you'll have to select 'Icon view' again.
> This is one point that drove me nuts while testing stuff in nautilus (it
> is also one of the things I really dislike about Windows Explorer). But
> maybe its just me. Is there any hidden concept behind this that I don't
> know of?
Well, if I have an "Images" folder, chances are I want to always view it as a
thumbs view, and so on. Maybe "Remember View Type" should be an option too?
> > > - Currently, if you click on a pathbar button which is a superdir of
> > > your
> > current location, the subdirectories of the dir you clicked in
> > disappear
> > from the pathbar.
> >
> > Not only is this inconsistent with the GTK filechooser, it makes the
> > pathbar less useful, since if each button represents a directory and
> > can accept drags, you could put a file into the directory from which
> > you just came, or rapidly switch back and forth, or many other uses.
> >
> > I think the pathbar should check if the current location is a subdir
> > of
> > the directory it's changing to. If it is, it should leave the buttons
> > alone, else it should clear them.
>
> This was changed per botsie's request. IIRC the exact reason was that
> it's too confusing for a file manager. Anyways, I don't have any real
> opinion here, but whatever the solution will be, it should be targeted
> at easy, intuitive usage, not necessarily power users.
Definitely. However, I think that Thunar should behave a fair bit like the GTK
file chooser, which implies that the button bar should act like the GTK file
chooser. Consistency and all that good stuff =P.
> In general, when making suggestions, please try to keep in mind that
> Thunar's primary goal is ease-of-use. Advanced users tend to have a
> different opinion on what is easy to use, which is not necessarily easy
> to use for others as well, or even worse, makes it harder to use for
> others. This is one of the things that makes ROX bad: It offers some
> geekish features that can make it easy to use for long-time users, but
> very unintuitive for the average user. This is mostly because the
> application behaves different than other Gtk+ applications.
>
> Benedikt
>
> --
> Xfce -- small, stable, fast -- http://www.xfce.org/
>
> (__)
> (oo)
> /------\/
> / | ||
> * /\---/\
> ~~ ~~
> ...."Have you mooed today?"...
> _______________________________________________
> Thunar-dev mailing list
> Thunar-dev@xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
--
Before Xerox, five carbons were the maximum extension of anybody's
ego.
_______________________________________________
Thunar-dev mailing list
Thunar-dev@xfce.org
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
