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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: taskbar grouping, off by default please.
From:       Martijn Klingens <mklingens () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2001-05-16 10:42:59
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 16 May 2001 08:37, Torsten Rahn wrote:
> > > Now the user sees at least once  he presses the taskbar at all
> > > where his tasks have gone. I think that's obvious enough ...
> >
> > You miss the point. We already had a grouping feature. It's called
> > "virtual
>
> Oh, So I have to be forced to use virtual desktops to "group"
> my tasks? Do you really think that more than 50 % of our users organize
> their stuff by using virtual desktops? "puhlease" -- this is ridiculous.
>
> Personally I don't use virtual desktops much easier because I can't
> organize my stuff that way. Judging from the fact the a lot of
> windows-users can't get rid of their habits this is probably
> true for a large amount of our users, too. a large amount of them will
> stick to the very first virtual desktop.
>
> > desktops". The taskbar shows you which apps you have running on a certain
> > desktop. With this second grouping feature that is gone. I have to move
> > my
>
> I think I saw a patch for grouping tasks per virtual desktop recently.
>
> > > Also I'd like to know whether Gnome and Windows XP will have it on by
> > > default too
> >
> > Puhlease, if we want to remain the leading desktop we need to think for
> > ourselves not sheepishly follow the mistakes of others.
>
> Puhlease. We have the chance to add a very handy feature by default.
> The only question is: Will the user experience it as an advantage or
> as an irritating issue. It's not easy to judge on that based on the needs
> of a kde-developer (because his needs usually differ from those of our
> target-userbase). So one option is making usability-tests and/or look at
> the conclusion other projects made (based on their
> assumptions/usability-test). After all people who come from Windows or
> other desktops will be very used to that feature if it is enabled by
> default and might feel that it has an advantage over the current behaviour.
>
> The comment-section of dot has become a forum of complainiacs anyways, but
> here we go ...
>
> > Don't implement something just because it is in winXP or it is in Gnome.
> > And if you really need to implement it make sure to implement it
> > correctly and in a smart way. I am not sure about the details of KDE
> > implementation, but here are my obvious observations:
> >
> >  - Don't need taskbar grouping if there are only two konqueror windows
> > are open. It just slows you down. You need two clicks instead of one
> > click to activate windows. So put a limit (4-5) on open windows before
> > grouping them.
>
> This would mean that one would be switching between two concepts all the
> time. Would be more irritating to the user imho.

Hmm... I think the poster was right with this, and IIRC Win XP will do that 
too. IMO it doesn't make sense to group buttons if there's plenty of space to 
show them all. I think the idea is not to group buttons for the sake of 
grouping but only for the sake of making maximal use of the available space 
in a crowded taskbar. If that's not the case, then I'm obviously wrong here...

Additionally, it makes more sense to group windows that are plenty than two 
konsole windows. Once the taskbar is really crowded it might be needed to 
group the konsoles too, but initially you'd want to avoid grouping windows of 
which only two are visible. Again, this is from the idea that grouping is 
used for cleaning up full task bars, not for the sake of 'just grouping'.

> >  - Only group windows that really can show some differentiating text to
> > identify which is which. An example is the url of the konqueror window. A
> > bad example is gnome xterm windows. I have three xterms open. Gnome
> > groups them and I am really frustrated since there is no text identifying
> > which one is which. If all of them were on the taskbar, at least mentally
> > I know their locations on the taskbar which makes it easy to switch.
>
> I don't see the difference between the current solution and the "old"
> taskbar here. In both there is no chance to see the difference without
> taking care of the position of the item.

What the poster probably meant is my own concern about the same thing: If I 
currently have multiple konsoles open I know that the first on the taskbar 
was the first started. Maybe I'm not an average user, but I know what shell 
is running in what konsole. Without the grouping (my CVS doesn't have it yet) 
I can see from the order of buttons on the task bar what konsole does what. 
If konsoles are grouped, but torn 'out-of-context' because the other apps 
aren't between them, you quickly lose sight what konsole does what. If every 
window has its own caption (like Konq) this is not a problem, obviously.

> >  - Use the taskbar fully before switching to grouping. There is no point
> > of grouping windows when the rest of the taskbar is empty. It just slows
> > down the productivity.
>
> This would mean that one would be switching between two concepts all the
> time. Would be more iriitating to the user imho.

I think having to click twice if there is no advantage in it is even more 
irritating, but that might be just me and the poster. On a full taskbar the 
increase of clarity by grouping outweighs the disadvantage of not seeing all 
apps in one overview and having to click twice. On an empty taskbar the 
grouping does _not_ have advantages and the disadvantages remain, IMO.

Regards,

Martijn

> Personally for me the taskbar has finally become usable with this feature
> being added. Before it was implemented the interior-taskbar was
> unusable because it was filled after creating _six_ windows (which is
> equivalent to opening a konqueror, a terminal and a gimp-session with only
> one image being opened.). The external taskbar was a cludge as well because
> one had to look through several lines of buttons before finding the right
> window.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Tackat
>
> > ======================
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Waldo

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