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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: feedback; bug reports
From:       James Richard Tyrer <tyrerj () acm ! org>
Date:       2007-11-08 19:42:58
Message-ID: 473366C2.6040000 () acm ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 05 November 2007, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> David Faure wrote:
>>> On Sunday 04 November 2007, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>>>> The Menu lists Konqueror with the description: "Web Browser" 
>>>> rather than "Browser".  Does this misnomer really improve 
>>>> usability?
>>> This menu item starts konqueror in web browser mode, so the 
>>> description is correct.
>>> 
>> So, change the name of the "mode" to 'browser' as well!
>> 
>> Actually, there is no "web browser mode".  It would be nice if, 
>> since we now have an actual file manager, if we could also 
>> eliminate this false division based on the (default) profiles: 
>> filemanagement & webbrowsing.
>> 
>> Most (perhaps all) of the differences between the so-called modes 
>> is based not on the profile but rather on the protocol being used 
>> to display the content and/or the content.

To clarify this please see these screen shots of the default 
configuration for Web Browsing:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tyrerj/kde/Konq-profiles/WB-www.png

and for File Management:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tyrerj/kde/Konq-profiles/FM-dir.png

The toolbars have different icons which lead the user to believe that 
there are two modes with different functions.  However as these screen 
shots show:

Web Browsing displaying a directory:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tyrerj/kde/Konq-profiles/WB-dir.png

File Management displaying a web page:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tyrerj/kde/Konq-profiles/FM-www.png

the content of the toolbars is totally dependent on the protocol of what 
is being displayed.  It is NOT dependent on the profile being used.  The 
only thing which is dependent on the profile is whether the Navigation 
Panel is displayed.

Is there anything else that can be configured in one profile that won't 
affect other profiles?  I have not found anything!

> Protocol is per view, window profile is per profile.

Missed what you meant by that.  Profile is per Konqueror window and a
Konqueror window can have multiple tabs each with a different protocol
being used.

> So the window profile cannot simply be dependent on the protocol:

Not the Window profile.  If there is to be a profile, this should be
dependent on the protocol being used in the current tab.

> you could have tabs where you have a local directory in one, and a 
> web page in another.

I think that that is part of my point.  The features available currently
change based on the protocol in the current tab.

>> This has lead to a great deal of confusion by users and a lot of 
>> useless bug reports.  The use of "web" is part of the problem. 
>> Survey question for users: Do you use the web browser mode to 
>> access an FTP site?
> 
> Well the filemanagement mode is more appropriate for managing files,
>  including over FTP (so that you get your local dirs in the sidebar,
>  for instance).

Yes, that is what I thought, but I don't know what he average user
thinks that they need to use it.

> I don't see the problem, what people call the "web" is http pages.

How do you know?  Have you taken  a survey of newbies to see if they
really understand the subtle difference between: 'web' and 'internet'?

> FTP is on internet, but it's not the web, so it's unrelated to the 
> web profile, so that's fine.
> 
> The only thing is that when clicking on a link from an http page to 
> an ftp site you are then still in the web browsing profile,

Exactly, you are now at an FTP site but in the "web browser"

> but well, changing the whole window would be worse.

Actually, many things do change.  For example, the Search Toolbar will
vanish and the Filter Toolbar (if enabled) will appear.

>> Why do we continue with this false distinction?
> 
> There didn't use to be one, but then people complained about the GUI
>  being bloated,

I don't see how this changed things.  None of the GUI was removed.

> the Home button always going to the same place,

It needs to be that way, otherwise it would be state dependent
overloading of a single icon.  However, as I have proposed, we can have
multiple buttons: Home, User_Files, Web_Home.  Or, we could have a short
"places" menu to replace the Home button.

> the web bookmarks and the local bookmarks being mixed up, etc. etc.

Does the current setup resolve this issue?  Yes this is an issue, but
having profiles doesn't address it.

> And btw all that complaining back and forth about the GUI is the 
> reason konqueror hacking is so not motivating. If I don't change 
> anything people complain, if I change anything people complain.

Yes indeed it is a problem.  However, by creating the two profiles and
leading users to believe that there are two Konqueror modes, we have
created confusion which is responsible for much of this complaining.
Users think that there are two modes and complain because they don't
work the way they think that they should.  This discussion has
legitimate issues buried in it (at least 90% noise).  If we can identify 
the various issues an provide a solution, even though it wasn't exactly 
the solution that users say that they want -- if we are good software 
engineers, we should be able to find better solutions -- I think that 
most people would be happy.  Currently, we have provided some half baked 
solutions and I agree with the users that they are not satisfactory.

> The current idea is to have -more- of that distinction, not less.

I am not necessarily opposed to this.  I am only opposed to the current 
way that it is implemented.

> If you don't want two modes, you are free to use only one of them for
>  everything.
> 
Actually, I can't do this because of the fact that these two modes are
in the code.  This is a poor design.

Since much of Konqueror is protocol dependent and the current profiles 
don't work and greatly confuse users, my recommendations are:

1.	The File Management profile be removed from the code.  We can still 
ship it as a backward compatibility feature.

2.	The function "kfmclient" call Dolphin rather than Konqueror.  This 
would mean that the: "openProfile" command would need to be ignored (for 
backward compatibility)

3.	The current Profile function needs to be split into a function to 
save content and a way to make different configurations.

4.	The configurations could be done in various ways.  We can have named 
configurations if we feel this is necessary, but there should be a 
default configuration for each profile, actually to start with you would 
have a default configuration and a modified copy would be saved with a 
name when modifications are made.

5.	Most configuration of the profiles can be accomplished with the 
existing toolbar configuration dialog.  I would add another button: 
"Apply to All Configurations".  The "Apply" button would apply only to 
that configuration or protocol.

6.	Some of the current (KDE3) Konqueror KCMs are a mess.  It is divided 
into Web & FileManager while some of the options apply to both.
Since there aren't two modes, these need to be completely redone to 
correspond with what the options actually apply to.  The current KDE4 is 
a great improvement, but some of it still suffers from the same problems.

-- 
JRT

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]