[Thunar-dev] Proposed preferences for Thunar

[Brian J. Tarricone]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Benedikt Meurer wrote:

>>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

Yuck on the details/treeview icon size.  For lists like that, I want the
icon size to be no taller than the font size.  For my setup, that's
16px.  The idea is to not increase the row height because of the icon.

>>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.

Yuck again: I really think having an option for single- or double-click
navigation is confusing as hell and terribly inconsistent.  The standard
pretty much everywhere is double-click.  The only things that do
single-click navigation are hyperlinks, and we don't have any of those.
 Note that even though Microsoft tried to push the single-click nav
model, literally every Windows box I've seen is configured for
double-click navigation.

>>    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?

This goes along with my point above.  There should be a way for the user
to set the default view, but I can easily see instances where, for
example, you have a directory full of images, and you want it to come up
in thumbnail view all the time.  Thunar should remember when you change it.

I think the key is being able to set a default view.  If you can't do
that, and each new folder navigation switches to Thunar's default and
not the user's default, that's a huge pain.

>>    - 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.

Eh.  I don't really have a strong opinion here either, but I feel like
if we're going to clone GtkFileChooser, we should behave the same way.
People are going to get used to how GtkFileChooser works, and small
deviations from that are going to be jarring and confusing.

	-brian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCwvMk6XyW6VEeAnsRAv8XAKCiT1VkqBD79R8/rujoHPFJYaQdQwCgnCG+
pEwNg/QdiTubx01dKooHC74=
=ksHu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----