[Thunar-dev] Proposed preferences for Thunar

[Ori Bernstein]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:29:13 +0200
Benedikt Meurer <benny at xfce.org> said:

> A few, quick comments:
> 
> > Show Sidebar:      [t][f]
> >     - Shows the sidebar or hides it.
> 
> There's more about this, like what widget should be displayed in the 
> sidebar.
> 
> > Icon size: {large, medium, small}
> >     - This should probably translate into different sizes for the different
> >       views. Maybe have the actual pixel sizes hidden in a config file
> >       eg: 
> >         iconview_size_large=128
> >         listview_size_large=32
> >         iconview_size_large=64
> >         ...
> >      This should keep the "powerusers" who want to actually control their icon
> >      sizes precisely happy while keeping configuration simple.
> 
> I'm more in favour of using dedicated icon sizes (from the 
> implementations POV). And adjusting icon sizes doesn't seem to be 
> necessary IMHO. It sounds more like a hack to work-around badly choosen 
> defaults. I'd say
> 
>   details/treeview - 22px
>   iconview (vertical/horizontal) - 48px
>   thumbsview - 128px
> 
> is pretty ok for everyone.

Maybe. Then again, some people will find some of (eg: thumbsview) sizes too
large, and would want to see the more images at once when finding one, while
older people (like my great- aunt or grandfather - I've been teaching them
computers recently) will be squinting at the listview. Even if it doesn't make
it into the options pane, I think it should be a hidden option. 

> Of course, we *can* make that an option as well. Indeed we can make 
> pretty much everything an option, but that would violate the concept of 
> simple and easy-to-use software IMHO.
> 
> > Default Sort By: {Name, Type, Size, Modified, Owner, ...}
> >    - For the ones that would have definite categories (type, owner), it would 
> >      be nice to have an explorer-like grouping type (see 
> >      http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/windows/2005/04/19/graphics/figure1.gif)
> 
> That won't work with the default treeview widget. We'd need to write our 
> own treeview, which is really something for Thunar 2.0 (not sure if we 
> need this anyways, IIRC somebody suggested something similar for 
> nautilus some time ago).

Yeah. I was sorta hoping it wouldn't be too hard to get the grouping to display
that way, but I wasn't holding my breath.


> > Directories Spring Open After <slider from 100ms to 2 seconds>
> >     - Auto-opening directories like ROX. Makes DND easier.
> 
> Hmhmh... sounds useful. Tho, dunno if it necessary to have an option for 
> the time.

Maybe not. Maybe it should be a toggle, or a hidden option. I don't know, but I
definitely want the feature there.

> > Notable omissions:
> >     - Single/Double click navigation: AFAIK, this is a global option for GTK.
> >       Thunar should follow it.
> 
> Nope, there's no concept for this in Gtk. The applications have to add 
> their own hacks to make single click navigation work. I.e., you can 
> check nautilus to see why this is a bad idea. ;-)
> 
> Since the rest of Gtk+/Xfce - atleast the parts that use the tree or 
> icon view widgets - work solely with double click navigation, it is not 
> very consistent and pretty confusing on first sight, to have single 
> click navigation in a widget which is otherwise double-click only.

Ok. I thought I remembered some sort of global setting for it somewhere, I
guess I was mistaken. Well, I guess I agree that it shouldn't be an option,
either way.

> Maybe something for Thunar 2.0 with a custom tree view widget.
> 
> >     - Launch folders in new window: So far, Thunar doesn't seem to have a very
> >       spatial interface, and doesn't seem to be headed in that direction at 
> >       all. I see no added benefit. If someone wants a filemanager that is
> >       spatial, I think they should use one designed that way.
> 
> ACK. If somebody wants to open a folder in a new window, he/she can 
> right-click -> 'Open in new window'.

That's why I put this in the "Notable Omissions" section.
> 
> >     I also wonder if it's a good idea to store per-directory preferences 
> >     (window size/position, view type, etc) in metadata if extended attributes 
> >     are available. IMO, it would make for a nicer user experience.
> 
> I have no clue about this. I also thought it is very confusing if one 
> selects 'Icon view', then enters another directory and the file manager 
> switches to 'Tree view' and you'll have to select 'Icon view' again. 
> This is one point that drove me nuts while testing stuff in nautilus (it 
> is also one of the things I really dislike about Windows Explorer). But 
> maybe its just me. Is there any hidden concept behind this that I don't 
> know of?

Well, if I have an "Images" folder, chances are I want to always view it as a
thumbs view, and so on. Maybe "Remember View Type" should be an option too?


> > >     - Currently, if you click on a pathbar button which is a superdir of your 
> >       current location, the subdirectories of the dir you clicked in disappear
> >       from the pathbar.
> > 
> >       Not only is this inconsistent with the GTK filechooser, it makes the
> >       pathbar less useful,  since if each button represents a directory and 
> >       can accept drags, you could put a file into the directory from which 
> >       you just came, or rapidly switch back and forth, or many other uses.
> >       
> >       I think the pathbar should check if the current location is a subdir of
> >       the directory it's changing to. If it is, it should leave the buttons
> >       alone, else it should clear them.
> 
> This was changed per botsie's request. IIRC the exact reason was that 
> it's too confusing for a file manager. Anyways, I don't have any real 
> opinion here, but whatever the solution will be, it should be targeted 
> at easy, intuitive usage, not necessarily power users.

Definitely. However, I think that Thunar should behave a fair bit like the GTK
file chooser, which implies that the button bar should act like the GTK file
chooser. Consistency and all that good stuff =P.

> In general, when making suggestions, please try to keep in mind that 
> Thunar's primary goal is ease-of-use. Advanced users tend to have a 
> different opinion on what is easy to use, which is not necessarily easy 
> to use for others as well, or even worse, makes it harder to use for 
> others. This is one of the things that makes ROX bad: It offers some 
> geekish features that can make it easy to use for long-time users, but 
> very unintuitive for the average user. This is mostly because the 
> application behaves different than other Gtk+ applications.
> 
> Benedikt
> 
> -- 
> Xfce  --  small, stable, fast  --  http://www.xfce.org/
> 
>            (__)
>            (oo)
>      /------\/
>     / |    ||
>    *  /\---/\
>       ~~   ~~
> ...."Have you mooed today?"...
> _______________________________________________
> Thunar-dev mailing list
> Thunar-dev at xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev


-- 
Before Xerox, five carbons were the maximum extension of anybody's
ego.