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

List:       kwin
Subject:    Re: Task Switcher UI
From:       Stefano Avallone <stavallo () unina ! it>
Date:       2012-03-02 11:37:39
Message-ID: 2834636.Mg4Q7xX9tI () dinard
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi all,

On Friday 02 March 2012 02:26:48 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am 02.03.2012, 00:35 Uhr, schrieb Hans Chen <hanswchen@gmail.com>:
> > Something like this?
> > --------------------------------------
> > Only show windows from
> > 
> >  The current application [ ]
> >  The current desktop [ ]
> >  The current activity [ ]
> >  etc.
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > 
> > It does seem quite nice, however, a possible problem I see is translating
> > it to other languages.
> 
> Yes, and yes - could be an i18n issue  - but that is sth. translators have
> to deal with all the time (eg. short strings can become considerably long
> in other languages)
> 
> > Also "include the desktop" does imo not belong into that list and the
> > 
> >> minimized state is at least a little different form the other ones
> >> (state
> >> ./. attribute) so i'd separate it with a line.
> > 
> > Agreed. Any suggestions how the minimized "filter" could be stated in a
> > better way?
> 
> [ ] Show
> 
> >    2. I believe most options are binary,
> >> 
> >> Nope, not sure about the idea behind, but multiscreen is ternary as well
> >> and therefore application, virtual desktop and activity should be as
> >> well?!
> >> -> tristate checkbox (+tooltip), radios, or two mutual checkboxes (ie.
> >> you
> >> can activate none or one toggles the other)
> > 
> > Urgh, I really hate "strange" checkboxes. :D
> 
> The better avoid them =)
> 
> [ ] Only use windows that are ( ) Minimized
>                                                       ( ) not minimized
> 
> [ ] Only use windows on          ( ) this Desktop
>                                                       ( ) other Desktops
> 
> Takes however more space.
> 
> > problem with comboboxes, in my opinion, is that it signals "here are a
> > lot of
> > options", and since there are a lot of options already it just adds to
> 
> fully agreed.
> 
> > As said I can't see why you would want a third option except for the
> > minimize case, if anyone has any use-cases it would be appreciated.
> 
> Me neither, I attached Stefano (i don't think he's subscribed to kwin@kde)

thanks, but I am subscribed to the list ;-)

> @Stefano:
> There's currently a question why the multiscreen option is ternary, ie.
> you can select
> * on this screen
> * on other screens <- this is the questioned setting
> * on all screen
> 
> Can you please elaborate on the rational behind?

Sure. Assume that you choose to only show windows from the current screen. 
When you alt+tab, you only see them. However, sometimes you may need to see 
the windows on the other screens. How do you do that? It would be useful to 
have a switching mechanism as simple as alt+tab. One solution is to configure 
the alternative alt+tab to only show windows from the other screens.

Actually, the three options setting for multi screen is similar to that for 
minimized windows. In current master there is already a commit I made which 
implements two options for minimized windows (show all windows, only show non-
minimized windows). However, while using the setting "only show non-minimized 
windows" I realized that it was boring not to have a fast switching mechanism 
to see minimized windows. I talked to Martin about introducing a new option 
"only show minimized windows" for use with alternative alt+tab and he actually 
proposed to generalize this concept to other settings.

I hope I explained myself.

Regarding the UI design, I will later read your discussion more carefully.

cheers,
Stefano


> ------- OT
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > P.S. Just as a side note, is this a common usage of entropy in this
> > context? I ask because I've seen it before, but being a physicist, I'm
> > used to the convention that higher entropy = more disorder. Confusing. :)
> 
> Shannon entropy, yes. Nothing directly to do with thermodynamics (directly)
> see here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)#Relationship_to_th
> ermodynamic_entropy and also the following paragraph which links there:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon's_source_coding_theorem
> 
> Actually it matches, because a disordered system cannot be compressed w/o
> information loss.
> It's confusing nevertheless and i though <thought
> class="imprudent">Americans should perhaps stop abusing artificial terms
> they probably don't understand just to appear smarter than they
> are</thought>
> (though to be fair, translating thermodynamic entropy to "disorder" is
> simplifying and actually "information density" doesn't really cut it
> either, one could however just have made up another word - *shrug* ;-)
> 
> Is "information density" a common English term?
> 
> ------- /OT
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Cheers,
> Thomas
_______________________________________________
kwin mailing list
kwin@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwin
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]