[Thunar-dev] Interface thoughts

[Erik Harrison]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:12:02 -0800, Brian J. Tarricone
<bjt23 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> Erik Harrison wrote:
> 
> >First off, I just wonder if anyone has taken a look at or had the
> >opportunity to use the NeXT file manager? If you've used the OS X
> >Finder, then you've used it's wimpy brother. You can see some
> >screenshots and explication here:
> >
> >http://www120.pair.com/mccarthy/nextstep/intro.htmld/Workspace.html
> >
> >
> Hmm.  The first thing that comes to mind when I look at that screenie is
> "wow, this file manager really isn't centered on managing files".  I'm
> sure you can resize it, and the screenie is just sized that way for
> presentation purposes, but still, the "shelf" and that other nameless
> bar under it are really large.  I'm not really sure what the point of
> that second bar is, either, since it appears to just show the hierarchy
> from your current location out to the root, which is redundant if you're
> in the multi-pane mode as shown in the screenie (a mode I'm not really a
> fan of, but that's neither here nor there).
> 
> >It's not perfect, and it's UI isn't quite consistent with other apps
> >in the GTK+ world, but it's well thought out and powerful.
> >Particularly the way it displays the current path. This simultaneously
> >acts like a back/forward/up/history like system, while also providing
> >an easy way to do stuff that some file managers make hard, like doing
> >drag and drop with the current directory. Double clicking on a folder
> >in that "history bar" takes you to that folder, but preserves the
> >history, until you decend into a different folder, much like a
> >browser. This is not only the most powerful history tool I've used in
> >a file manager, it is also probably the easiest to learn.
> >
> >
> Is it really a history tool?  From the description in the writeup you
> linked to:
> 
> "Below the Shelf is a small area that shows the current path from the
> top level (the "root" directory, in UNIX terms) to the selected app or
> document. This path is illustrated with icons, and is scrollable (if the
> path is long enough, as it is in the image above), so the file system is
> quite easy to understand in a graphical way."
> 
> It appears that it's just a list of folders from the root to where you
> are currently.  From what you're saying, it acts "smart" in that you can
> jump around a bit, and it doesn't change the buttons until you *really*
> go somewhere else.  (Incidentally, this is something GtkFileChooser's
> button bar does just as well, but without wasting so much space to do it.)

Yeah, it's "smart" and it is space wasteful. But as you point out it
doesn't have to be wasteful. The only real problem with the
FileChooser's button bar is that it hides the fact that you can drag
and drop the various buttons by showing them as buttons (an object I
never drag and drop) instead of as folder like objects, which I do.

> 
> >I'd also like to point out that spatial and navigational models are
> >not incompatible in the same file manager. Spatial is very easy to
> >learn and to do basic tasks with. It also (Like Brian and Steve Jobs
> >pointed out) makes the user the janitor. The most recent version of OS
> >X puts both models in the Finder, and then makes the moronic mistake
> >of making the navigational mode default.
> >
> >
> One man's moronic mistake is another's brilliant choice ^_~. 

The main (and I would argue, only) advantage of a spatial view is it's
learnability. Including an easy to learn mode, and making the user
actively jump through several hoops to get to it is silly. It's an
extra five minutes I have to use configuring every one of my families
computers instead of it being learnable out of the box.

 Though I
> don't particularly like the multi-pane view, but that's another story.
> 
> >If you have a "New Window on open" option, and the ability to disable
> >all the toolbars, then you can make a spatial file manager without
> >sacrificing users like Jasper, Brian and me. Just make those the
> >default
> >
> >
> Agreed.  I really don't see why we can't do both here.  Hell, even
> Windows does it this way, via Tools->Folder Options, General tab.  You
> can tell it to open new folders in the same or a new window, and from
> the main window, you can enable/disable the treeview.  Voila, it's
> spatial-ish.  I really have no problem with the default being a
> spatial-type mode, with the treeview hidden and new windows being opened
> for new folders, and the view mode set to icons rather than a list view
> (or whatever).  As long as I can tell it to turn on the treeview,and
> then *always* show the treeview when a Thunar window gets opened,
> something Windows Explorer *doesn't* get right, and permanently disable
> the new window behavior, I'll be happy.  Is there something vital I'm
> missing about the spatial interface that makes it difficult to allow
> Thunar to act like either?

I think that it should be fairly easy, and accomplishable by including
a couple of options that lots of users will like clamor for anyway
(disabling of toolbars, new window on folder open).

> 
>     -brian
> _______________________________________________
> Thunar-dev mailing list
> Thunar-dev at xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
> 


-- 
CAPS LOCK: ITS LIKE THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME
-Erik