[Thunar-dev] [Usability] Proposed simplifications

[Jasper Huijsmans]

Jasper Huijsmans wrote:
> Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> 
>>whistler at fnord.ch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Hm, somehow I think, there's a difference between navigating the file
>>>>>system and acting on the file system. Action happens in the main view,
>>>>>navigation *can* happen in the main view, but it will most often happen
>>>>>in the pure navigational components (favourites pane, tree pane,
>>>>>location bar, location dialog/entry, ...).
>>>>>
>>>>>Or do I miss a point here?
>>>>
>>>>I don't think that the shotcut/favourites/bookmark pane counts as a 
>>>>full fledged
>>>>navigational component. It allows you to jump to a certain point in the
>>>>filesystem hierarchy, but afterwards you have to use some of the other
>>>>navigational components (the tree pane, location bar/dialog/entry)).
>>>>
>>>>In the current implementation, however, you cannot use this combination.
>>>
>>>Of course the tree-view-pane would have to implement the same file 
>>>manipulation
>>>capabilities as the list view and the icon view. OS X has something similar,
>>>though they don't show the shortcut pane while the tree view is active, I
>>>think.
>>
>>
>>Dunno. People requested the Window Explorer like tree-navigation in the 
>>sidepane several times. And I know quite a few people that complained 
>>about the missing side-tree in xffm several times (xffm has two 
>>independent tree panes).
>>
>>We could add a main tree view later (if necessary). It doesn't fit the 
>>current design either, where the ThunarListModel is actually a list 
>>representation of a folder, rather than a tree (that could be changed of 
>>course).
>>
>>I kinda understand your point, but experience tells me that this is not 
>>the way most people will want to interact with Thunar. I'd like to hear 
>>how the others think about this topic.
>>
> 
> 
> I fully agree with you. It's a totally different concept (show 
> everything in one view vs. show one directory at the time) and I don't 
> think we should offer too many different views; for the same reason I 
> would also oppose a column view, even though it is a cool concept.
> 
> Additionally, having only one folder in a view probably possibly allows 
> for optimizations in the code that are not possible otherwise, but 
> that's pure speculation.
> 

Oh, and just to make sure, I _do_ think we should have a folder tree 
side-pane, if only because it is so often requested; just not a xffm/mac 
  -like treeview with folders and files in the view pane.