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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: view management trouble ;)
From:       Mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       1999-12-13 2:28:58
[Download RAW message or body]

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

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