[Thunar-dev] Some GUI Suggestions.

[Brian J. Tarricone]

Benedikt Meurer wrote:

> Jeff Franks wrote:
>
>> Here are some mock up images that show you my idea of a clean, simple
>> and well laid out file manager. I posted these recently to xfce-dev as a
>> suggestion for the next version of xffm.
>>
>> http://xfc.xfce.org/tmp/xfce4-fm-menubar.png
>> http://xfc.xfce.org/tmp/xfce4-fm-no-menubar1.png
>> http://xfc.xfce.org/tmp/xfce4-fm-no-menubar2.png
>
I'm with Benny on the menu thing - having the menubar compressed to a 
toolbar item is just weird.  Maybe it saves space, but it's not what 
users expect to see.  This sounds like a geeky space-saving feature for 
the type of person that is really picky about "counting pixels".  Not 
that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think it's 
appropriate for Thunar.

I also don't see the need for such a large toolbar.  What is the black 
rectangle for?  Does it launch a terminal?  That's another geeky feature 
- I might find it useful, actually, to have a quick "open a terminal 
here" button, but I think this shouldn't be exposed so visibly in a 
simple file manager.  What's the point of zoom buttons?  I don't think 
we're going to do multi-size icons.  Is that last icon a quit button?  
That's what the little "x" button in the top right corner is for.  At 
any rate, the toolbars will be user-configurable (right Benny?), so it 
would probably be possible for the user to add such buttons if they 
wanted.  Then again, the only toolbar button I ever use in a FM is the 
up arrow button.

Agreed that there's no need for a ".." or "/" icon in the main view.  
That's what the up arrow toolbar button is for.

> Personally, *I* like your design (pretty much the same as the very 
> first Filer design), plus adding an optional shortcuts list in the 
> sidebar and plus some nicely integrated query-interface. But I'm sure 
> somebody will complain about the missing treeview or the missing 
> location bar (or to sum up: the UI is too easy to use), yannow...

Gee Benny, you seem to have this really deep problem with anyone who 
wants a little more power out of their file manager.  Have you forgotten 
that easy to use and powerful aren't mutually exclusive?  At the very 
least, having the functionality (treeview, location bar) available, but 
disabled by default, sounds like a fine compromise without decreasing 
ease-of-use.  You might find these added features useless, but don't be 
so condescending toward those of us who work differently.

>> The design is based on the way I like to use a file manager and uses
>> just an icon view, no tree view or side bar. It has a menu bar, toolbar
>> and statusbar. The second and third images show you how space saving and
>> convenient it would be, to be able to optionally display the menubar as
>> a popup menu from the toolbar. Users expect to be able to access all
>> application functionality from the menubar so the new file manager
>> should have a proper menubar.
>
>
> As said, that 'menubar compression' is confusion, since its not the 
> expected behaviour of a menubar.
>
>> Users also expect to be able to access
>> commonly used functions from a toolbar so the new file manager should
>> also have a toolbar.
>
>
> The toolbar (for navigational mode) will be editable and optional 
> (just like with Terminal).
>
>> Personally, I don't like file treeviews because I
>> find then cumbersome, but side bars can be useful. And there is always
>> konqueror or nautilus for those occassions a user might need to use a
>> file tree.
>
Having to install an entrely separate file manager to get the "I only 
need this occasionally" functionality sounds kinda silly to me.  
Especially considering that the dependency lists for Nautilus and Konq 
are by no means small.  At any rate, for me, a treeview is a constant 
necessity.

>> Both navigational and spatial file management have their pros and cons,
>> and I think there must be a near 40:60, 50:50 or 60:40 user preference
>> split. So how do you keep the majority of users happy? One way would be
>> to make "spatiality" a property of the folder, not the entire file
>> manager. Spatial file windows could be used for special folders, such as
>> My Music, My Device, My Pictures, My Downloads etc. Users could
>> optionally create a spatial folder knowing that its location and size
>> will always be the same. Usually you shouldn't need to navigate from a
>> spatial window but if you did, you should be able to, but any changes
>> made wouldn't be saved. Spatial folders would especially be suitable for
>> use in the panel, on the desktop, or from the Xfce menu. The Xfce4
>> settings dialog would make a good spatial folder.
>
>
> Thunar should be consistent, so adding both worlds within a single 
> file manager is confusing. You'd need some magic to allow the user to 
> easily differentiate between spatial views and navigational views. It 
> would be hard to get used to such a file manager, and it is *IMHO* the 
> opposite of being intuitive.

No no no no no.  I really don't see why this is so hard for you to wrap 
your mind around.  Let's assume for a second that Thunar's default 
behavior is to be a spatial file manager.  This means it would look 
exactly like the pre-navigational screenshots we've seen.  Just a 
window, with a menubar/toolbar, then an icon view.  Double clicking a 
folder opens a new window for that folder.

Then we have the View menu.  It has perhaps a "sidebar" option.  Enable 
the sidebar, and you get a treeview (and perhaps bookmarks).  Open up 
the preferences window.  Unselect "open folders in new windows".  There, 
now it's a navigational browser.  Or, if you like the new windows, leave 
that pref alone.  Then you have a hybrid.  Maybe they want a location 
bar.  Click, click, it's done.  Etc.

So basically, you have the supposedly-superior-for-new-users spatial 
model as the default, and if the user doesn't even touch any preferences 
or menu options, they have the spatial model, and it Just Works.  
There's no confusion, and the options relating to a more 
navigational-based FM can be enabled later if/when the user gets more 
advanced and wants to try out different things (note that I'm *not* 
saying that an advanced user necessarily wants to use a navigational FM, 
just that an advanced user may want to explore the software more and 
find out what the different options do).  I think this is a great 
example of the "progressive disclosure" concept that botsie mentioned 
last week.  I'm not talking about having a "spatial mode" and 
"navigational mode" switch in the software.  I think that's stupid, 
inflexible, and limiting.  But I think it's fine to have the default 
options set such that Thunar has a spatial feel, but allow the user to 
set options that make Thunar behave like a navigational file manager.

> As for the menu and preferences: For a spatial file manager, that 
> would be perfect to integrate the menu and the preferences with the 
> file manager. Esp. the menu editing would be very easy, since the user 
> already knows how to use the file manager, and so he can easily edit 
> the menu just like he'd move around files. The preferences are just 
> part of the menu. Ok, and now I'll be flamed for this paragraph...

Actually, I think that's a great idea.  Well, I'm not so sure about the 
preferences, since I don't know exactly what you mean.  But the menu is 
a perfect candidate for being editable via the file manager.  However, I 
disagree that a spatial manager makes more sense here - the menu is, in 
it's very presentation, a hierarchical structure.  The UI for it is a 
tree.  It seems to me that a treeview-type editor makes more sense 
here.  I'm thinking kinda how the Windows start menu works - it's just a 
bunch of shortcuts in a folder tree.  Obviously it's not going to be 
that simple for us, since we have the Freedesktop menu spec to contend 
with, but representing the spec as a tree in a file manager makes 
perfect sense.

    -brian