[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: kdesky (was: Re: Changes to DialogBase and KAboutDialog)
From:       Cristian Tibirna <ctibirna () total ! net>
Date:       1999-07-12 22:09:18
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Simon Hausmann wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Dirk A. Mueller wrote:

> > What? I think it's really more logical to put the "sticky" icons in
> > ~/Desktop and desktop-specific icons in ~/Desktop/<desktopnumber>/
> > 
> > I can't believe putting sticky icons in a separate dir is more
> > intuitive.
> > 
> > Additionally this is backward compatible for the user. while we take
> > care that the config files are backward compatible, why don't we
> > respect Desktop icons?
> 
> Ah, oh, uhm, I misunderstood you. Of course your approach is much better
> IMHO. :-)

No, it's not :-) (sorry, this is longish, but I hope it will clarify my
point of view, so that you can combat me effectively).

If we want to do the things right and remember what the whole idea is
behind the Desktop thing, you'll maybe also recall that the on-screen
desktop is just a vision of the Desktop folder user's account carries,
just visually enhanced. KFM/Konqui extend this to each and every view,
which are no more than visually enhanced folders (or objects) on the disk.

This makes logical for the user that what he sees on the desktop is what
his Desktop directory contains.

Now, what KDE-1.x was doing (one Desktop directory for all virtual screen
desktops) was a bit illogical. So, we proposed to push the things back to
order, and prepare one directory per desktop.

Now, if I were Joe User (am I not?), when I'd come exposed to this concept
(each virtual desktop is the vision of a physical directory), I'd expect
that *all* these directories be present in my home directory and be named
after the names I have on my kpanel buttons. Hence, instead of just
$HOME/Desktop, I'd have $HOME/One $HOME/Two etc. (let's suppose I didn't
rename my desktops yet - what an awful presumtion :-).

Of course such thing would be insane. We can't create 32 new dirs in
user's home just because we are KDE. So, for KDE-2.x, we can use a
directory $HOME/Desktops and just put the whole collection into it:
$HOME/Desktops/One ....

Now we come to the sticky icons concept. At school I have 3 work tables.
Each has a specific destination: 1) litterature+cuts from reviews+books;
2) computer; 3) samples+chromato tools etc. Each of these desktops carries
very specific items. But, my notebook and my pencil are always the same
and used on all desktops. Well, I don't keep them on the floor, in front
of my desktops (hence in the $HOME/Desktops directory) but I generally
keep them in a convenient edge (between the computer and the samples)
which I mentally call the "keep-anything" region. That would be what I
designated like the "General directory: $HOME/Desktops/General

If I were John User, I worked 3 days with my new KDE-2 and I mentally
decided that different categories of icons belong to a given desktop and
some icons are sticky and appear everywhere, then if I'd suddenly decide
to really go and `ls -l` in my $HOME/Desktops, just for the heck of it,
I'd be very surprised if I saw all my sticky icons inthere, mixed with
some weird directories, named 1, 2 etc, and which I don't really see on
any of my virtual desktops.

So, my proposal:

$HOME/Desktops
$HOME/Desktops/General
$HOME/Desktops/[One,Two,Three...] (names actually corresponding to
kpanel's buttons (or kwm's desktop names, as this is technically correct))

An icon declared sticky is automatically moved to General and symbolically
linked to all other desktops or a special code reads it from General and
displays it in all desktops.

Cristian

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]