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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    RE: Configurable treeview in konqueror
From:       Dawit Alemayehu <adawit () earthlink ! net>
Date:       1999-09-13 13:53:26
[Download RAW message or body]

Greetings,

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, David Faure wrote:
> > 
> > Hmmm, or perhaps we should stay with one column for *this* 
> > treeview and keep the kfmtreeview (the current one) as additional treeview 
> > available?
> 
> Oh I see what you mean (after reading 3 times) ;)
> Yes, I fully agree.
> Otherwise there is a huge mix between
> * a treeview starting at a given URL (like the current one, which 
> we can ask for any URL)
> * the configurable treeview, without details, a bit like the ms explorer
> one. Except that it's 100% configurable.
> 
> Yup, sounds good. Let's keep them two different things.
> But then we need a name for this configurable tree... :)
[snipped]

To me it looks like the current treeview in konqueror is actually a treeview
with details.  It really confused me when I used it the first time because I
was expecting a treeview to be like the one in kfm or kruiser or Windows
Explorer etc  So for what it is worth here is my suggestion.

IMHO, what is called a treeview should act just like it is in the application
mentioned above.  As already stated, it should not have multiple columns
and be configurable.  The current treeview should either be converted to a
a normal view option - Details ( aka Long View in kfm ) and should not be a
treeview or become one of the many view formatting options : Large Icons, Small
Icons, Details, List, Details w/ Treeview ?? (I personally prefer the first one).

The other question I guess is view follow view issue.  In case of the treeview
this should be simple.  The treeview should be bound to whichever is the active
view and adjusts itself accordingly.

Regards,
Dawit A.

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