It always has! ;-) In the standard client it's the same pin button, in the Next and System styles it's the +/- button. David Faure wrote: > > Some sort of icon like the "sticky" icon in kwm ? > > (/me wonders if kwin will have that in the future) > > On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 08:01:23PM +0100, Simon Hausmann wrote: > > > > IMHO Mosfet is right, and if he manages to find a good non-X-looking > > :) replacement for the passive mode thingy, then IMHO it'd be good to have > > a close button on the right and a passive mode switch on the left, both > > looking different. > > > > Ciao, > > Simon > > > > On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, David Faure wrote: > > > > > What you say makes a lot of sense, but don't you > > > think it's going to be confusing to have two similar buttons > > > on the view frame, one for passive mode and one for closing ? > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 09:26:06AM -0600, Mosfet wrote: > > > > All I want is if I open a new view I want to close it with a single > > > > click. The current scheme of having to use menus is inconvenient at > > > > best. The most obvious way to handle this is a close button on the > > > > frame. Doing this does not make it MDI, it doesn't change the philosophy > > > > of how frames are handled at all. It just makes Konqi much more > > > > convenient to use. The other option would be a toolbar button to close > > > > the current frame, but even that isn't as convenient as a button inside > > > > the frame bar which also wouldn't waste valuable screen or toolbar real > > > > estate. Not doing something that is the right thing to do just because > > > > it looks like something unpopular (even tho it has absolutely nothing to > > > > do with MDI!) is not nice. > > > > > > > > As far as 2) is concerned, it is not a good general solution. It does > > > > nothing to make it easier for people to close views that are manually > > > > added - only helps the dirtree view. The close button is a general > > > > solution. Not that 2 shouldn't be implemented, but 2 does not solve the > > > > fact that if I add a new view to browse screenshots with the kview view > > > > I have to go back to the menus to close it, etc... > > > > > > > > David Faure wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 02:11:21AM +0100, Simon Hausmann wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm a bit in trouble with the view management in konqy :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually I'm wondering about two problems: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) We will want to provide an easy&fast way to remove passive views. > > > > > > (the current way isn't, at least not for views which are forced to be > > > > > > passive) > > > > > That's right... > > > > > > > > > > > The easiest approach coming to my mind is a small sort of close button > > > > > > in the view frame. This however conflicts with the idea not to make the > > > > > > splitter stuff in konqueror look like MDI . > > > > > > I'm clueless :-) > > > > > Well it's still not exactly MDI (which would mean moving sub-windows around). > > > > > The problem is that the current checkbox and the close button would > > > > > look very much alike... > > > > > > > > > > Anyway since the passive view that is the most often used is > > > > > the directory tree, your point 2) solves it for the most common case, no ? > > > > > > > > > > > 2) We decided to have a menu item like "Show/Hide Directory Tree", in > > > > > > order to provide a fast&easy way to make use of the dirtree (as the way > > > > > > via Window->Load View Profile, etc. isn't that good) . > > > > > > While it's quite easy to implement "Show Directory Tree" (like split > > > > > > window and let the view on the left be a dirtree view), I'm clueless > > > > > > about what the behaviour of "Hide Directory Tree" should be. > > > > > Hehe :-) > > > > > > > > > > > Should it be like: > > > > > > a) Whatever views are available, remove the left/topmost dirtree. > > > > > > or > > > > > > b) get rid of all dirtree views (although I doubt that there will be > > > > > > user having more than one dirtree ;-) > > > > > > or > > > > > > c) you_name_it :) > > > > > > > > > > The most clever way would be that the option is available only if there is > > > > > a dirtree, and it would remove it. > > > > > > > > > > There can't be two, AFAICS... because "Show Directory Tree" is not available > > > > > when it's already shown, right ? > > > > > Since there is only one config for the dirtree, there's not really any > > > > > point in showing two anyway. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > David FAURE > > > > > david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org > > > > > http://home.clara.net/faure/ > > > > > KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Daniel M. Duley - Unix developer & sys admin. > > > > mosfet@mandrakesoft.com > > > > mosfet@kde.org > > > > mosfet@jorsm.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > David FAURE > > > david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org > > > http://home.clara.net/faure/ > > > KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > David FAURE > david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org > http://home.clara.net/faure/ > KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today -- Daniel M. Duley - Unix developer & sys admin. mosfet@mandrakesoft.com mosfet@kde.org mosfet@jorsm.com