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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: how to configure view-follows-view ?
From:       Dawit Alemayehu <adawit () earthlink ! net>
Date:       1999-08-20 3:46:01
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Michael Reiher wrote:
> Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > One feature we definitely need IMHO is to make it possible to redirect all
> > open-url requests to another view, so that it looks like one view follows
> > another one.
> Right!
> 
> > 
> > As often mentioned, it is from the "technical" point of view absolutely no
> > problem, konqueror *can* do that already. (will need minor adjustements)
> > 
> > But I'm completely clueless about the way we should present this feature
> > to the user...
> > 
> > Matthias Elter said on irc that it'd be nice to configure this via dnd,
> > in somehow through the view-frame.
> Overkill;-) (see below)
> 
> > 
> > I agree with him and I think the view-frame should/will play a certain
> > role when configuring such bindings. However I have *no* idea how to
> > "indicate" that one view is "master" and one is "slave" .
> Well, weīd need a little icon. Quite little. Looks like a job for our
> artists:-)
> > 
> > Well, one simple approach would be do have two kinds of icons, displayed
> > somewhere in a corner of the titlebar. But this is tricky and probably
> > pretty much confusing when having more that two views.
> As long as you donīt have tons of views, Iīd say thatīs no Problem.
> 
> > 
> > I also think that we might consider restricting this feature only to views
> > which are next to each other (above/below/left/right) .
> Thatīs IMHO not a good idea.
> > 
> > Hmmm, another idea comes to my mind:
> > If we go for the above described restriction, then we could draw arrows,
> > pointing to the view which "eats" all the url requests.
> Uhh? Do you want to paint them into the titlebar? How would the user
> know what is meant by these arrows?
> > 
> > But this properly works only for "horizontal" bindings, because of the
> > horizontal splitters.
> You want to draw them onto the Splitterbars? That would result in
> veeeery small arrows.
> > 
> > Hmmm, yes, I'd like the arrows thingy, although the restriction to
> > horizontal bindings is somewhat ugly, isn't it?
> I soon recommit that splitting stuff(fully working this time; took a bit
> longer than planned, as I was on vacation the last week) and then even
> the horizontal thingy wonīt work anymore, I fear.
> 
> > 
> > Perhaps someone has an idea how to indicate the view-follows-view feature
> > for vertical bindings?
> > Or perhaps someone has a completely better/new idea?
> Well, my idea was(as I already told you) to give every view a state,
> this can be either Master, Slave or None. We restrict it to one Master.
> Otherwise it would be too confusing. But we can have several Slaves. All
> views configured as Slave follow the view configured as Master. Views
> with the state None are neutral. Slaves can further be switched in BiDir
> mode. When in BiDir mode an URL opened in the Slave is opened in the
> Master as well. This way views can follow each other, like old kfm did
> when tree-follows-view was enabled. When a Slave is not in BiDir mode
> selecting URLs in it has no effect on the Master.
> So we would only need two buttons/icons in the FrameHeader:
> Master/Slave/None and BiDir On/Off. No need for DnD.
> 
> Comments?

Well the problem still remains.  How do you present this to the user ?  How do
you indicate to the user which Master view and which one(s) is(are) the Slave
view(s) ?  Sicne your idea is to restrict to one master perhaps using 
color-coding to distinguish the Master and from the Slave(s) View(s) would be
one idea ???  But still how can the user configure all this stuff ?

Cheers,
Dawit A.

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