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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: tabbed everything
From:       Esben Mose Hansen <kde () mosehansen ! dk>
Date:       2005-02-01 19:28:11
Message-ID: 200502012027.21448.kde () mosehansen ! dk
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 31 January 2005 22:15, Maurizio Colucci wrote:
> Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
> > On Monday 31 January 2005 11:44, Maurizio Colucci wrote:
> >>Tabs are a good system, but require you to manually manage the open
> >>documents, i.e. decide whether you are going to need a document again.
> >
> > No more so than the 1 window per document, surely?
>
> Of course not. I was not comparing tabs with the 1-window paradigm at
> all. I was just pointing out a problem of tabs.

So you are really pointing out a problem with all multiple document editing 
capabilities. Interesting.

>
> >>Don't underestimate this fact. It has drawbacks:
> >>
> >>1. it requires discipline and foresight (in fact, newbies don't get and
> >>don't use tabbed browsing)
> >
> > Not really. Many people I observe use the algorithm: Open everything new
> > in new tabs until the number of tabs are unmanageable. Then use the
> > "close all tabs but this" to bring it under control again.
>
> This contradicts my experience. I suspect those people are either not
> newbies, or newbies that were explained how to use tabbed browsing. Or
> you know very different people than me.


The people are an extremely varied bunch. Some can handle Word and explorer, 
barely. Some are fairly adroit. 


Those programs opened new document in tabs by default. That is probably the 
reason for the difference.

Also, don't assume everybody is a newbie. Most aren't, naturally.


>
> >>2. you don't always know whether you are going to need a page again.
> >
> > This is actually point 1 again, isn't it? :-P
>
> Not at all. Point 1 states that tabs require foresight. Point 2 states
> that, even with foresight, sometimes you have problems.

Not with sufficient foresight, surely? :-P

>
> >>So, IMO,  tabbed browsing is good for web browsing, because accessing
> >>web pages is slow, so the effort to decide whether you will need the
> >
> > Accessing web pages is not significantly slower for me than accessing
> > files, depending on size and connectivity.
>
> Then it might be interesting to create a web browser which exploits the
> the "recent locations sidebar" approach instead of tabs.

Most browser have this (I think Konqueror is the exception here). I never use 
it as a replacement for tabs, not have I seen anyone else do so. I use 
history to relocate documents which I read but didn't bookmark. I have no 
other's experiences to back this up; I have never seen a living soul use the 
history feature, ever.

>
> >>current document again is worth. But for browsing files, it is much
> >>better to have a list of recent folders. This is like tabs, but you
> >
> > Not at all like tabs. That list will contain mis-clicks, mistakes and all
> > sort of irrelevant document.
>
> Irrelevant documents which quickly go to the bottom of the list, ceasing
> to annoy the user.

That is not true. The links will stay on top because I would keep clicking on 
them, realizing it was the wrong document because /have no way of indicating 
that this document was irrelevant /.

This is what happens with tabs, except that there I can close the offending 
page. This usage is also what I observe in others.

>
> > Sure, recent document, is nice, but no replacement
> > for tabs. Recent document is nice when you forget what you called that
> > new document you were working on yesterday, but not nice when rapidly and
> > repeatedly switching between several documents.
>
> I don't agree. I respectfully suggest you to try nonspatial nautilus
> with the history sidebar.

I know I would hate it, just like I hated the spatial nautilus. I didn't care 
to dig up the register hack at the time, so I never tried the non-spatial. 
See above for reasons --- I would keep having irrelevant documents in that 
list.

>
> > I hate nautilis :) And judging from the gnome mailing lists, slashdot and
> > other places, I am not alone.
>
> Would you care to explain us why? Are you by any chance referring to
> *spatial* nautilus, which is another cattle of fish?

Yes, it was the spatial. I hated it because it opened all those windows, 
getting me completely lost. At the time, a register hack was necessary to 
change this option (or so I gathered). I didn't bother.

I would have to download most of Gnome to try it out, it seems. Don't you have 
an example which is a bit more light-weight?

Don't you also find it interesting that nearly every text editor have tabs or 
the equivalent? That nearly every modern program have some sort of multiple 
document interface? (Usually the 1 window - 1 document)? Would this indicate, 
perhaps, that there is some measure of gain in the multiple document 
interface idea? I would not want to live without that.

-- 
regards. Esben
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]