--nextPart1773427.UbHb2N2CdC
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Le Mardi 28 Juin 2005 18:45, Thomas Zander a =C3=A9crit :
> I'm not sure about that at all;  hierarchies are not needed, at least
> having at max 1 level of subdirs is not what I call hierarchical.

But it is hierarchical... =3D)

> If I=20
> recall the researches done on the subject, users work best in one dir or
> one subdir if a user is structured.

Exactly, see the point of system:/ now? I'm aiming toward a simplified=20
hierarchy to help the user work better, if he's structured.

> Technologies like searching and recent-files just makes everything
> accessible in such an environment again.

But not everything though searching _only_, hence why I still claim that=20
you'll need a hierarchy.

> Reiterating from my former mail; showing the user a new (forced) hierarchy
> again is not an improvement over the current situation.  See the nth
> redesign of kcontrol. Just as bad as the first.

You're mixing the issues... With kcontrol redisigns it's always the same da=
ta=20
set displayed differently. The point of system:/ is to display a _different=
_=20
dataset which correspond to the desktop users task. So it _is_ an=20
improvement, but of course it doesn't solve everything (just like search=20
won't solve everything).

Regards.
=2D-=20
K=C3=A9vin 'ervin' Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net
"Ni le ma=C3=AEtre sans disciple, Ni le disciple sans ma=C3=AEtre,
Ne font reculer l'ignorance."

--nextPart1773427.UbHb2N2CdC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBCwYOLB0u7y43syeIRAq5GAJ9MaDTNMo8VQwyK5K65PA5Z/+aJrgCglgFz
/vjSUIbFzUBDWC0Cv/b151w=
=qy3g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1773427.UbHb2N2CdC--