[Thunar-dev] Some UI Ideas

[Adam Scheinberg]

Jasper (and crew) 

Thanks for your response.  Let me toss a few more thoughts in. 

I guess I didn't really understand the use of "simple" in simple file
manager.  To me, file manager "bloat" refers to options that are
rarely used or are used by a very small segment of the audience.  If
something is used by most people and considered worthwhile, it's not
bloat, it's substance.  Cutting down on bloat doesn't mean elimination
of useful features.  Sure, I can live without, say, icon preview, but
I don't consider it bloat.  I write PHP, nothing else, so I don't even
know if that ability adds a ton of code or a short and sweet .c file. 
 But it seems cool, and I always think the more "wow factor" something
has, the more successful it will be.

Know what most people I show XFCE have to say? They love how quickly
the WM theme can change.  That's what people walk away with.  Just
interesting to know that some big time features are taken for granted,
others are seized and championed.

> As it looks now the file manager will be navigational. The gtk file chooser can
> hardly be called spatial, can it?

No, but I don't care for it either.  The whole buttons across the top
is still kind of odd feeling.  It might be a trivial difference, but
I'd rather see a non-buttoned text across the top showing the path,
with each directory clickable.  Think hyperlink vs. button.  It might
not be immediately obvious, but it also won't be so busy.  Plus, tree
view on the side for sure.

> Remember, our goal is not to make the perfect file manager. Our goal is to
> make a very simple file manager that works well for basic file management
> tasks.

Why? Perfect doesn't have to mean all encompassing... by why purposely
leave out features that might useful? I've used Gnome and KDE on a
hundred distros - since Eazel disappeared, they ALL use Nautilus and
Konq respectively.  Yet with XFCE, lots of people writing distros
switch out XFFM.  Doesn't that suggest that maybe a more robust, less
confusing FM would be useful?

> > 1. The ability to preview text files in the icon, and preview audio with a hover
> Not sure this is within the scope of a simple file manager.

That could be true. It doesn't really comprimise much to give that up. 

> Currently we're evaluating the use of gtkfilechooser-like path buttons and
> have a Ctrl-L location dialog. That's my personal favorite layout of all the
> ui mockups that we (read: benny) made.

I personally don't like the whole button thing, although the mockup is
definitely the most attractive version I've seen to date.  I think the
ability to type into a textbox is more consistent with what users
expect, not just because of Windows, but because it's the same
behaviour they have come to expect with a web browser.

Love the columns view, btw. 

> > 3. The ability to easily mount and browser remote systems via SSH,
> > FTP, NFS, and SMB.
> 
> I don't think so. Use a 'big' filemanager, like nautilus for that. That's only
> my personal opinion though.

Again, not a requirement - we have gFTP if necessary.  I always think
mounting remote filesystems makes for great productivity, but I do
lots of web development for my company, so...

> > 4. A "smart" view.  It should default to icons for a folder with only
> > a few files, but list view when you're browsing a folder with lots of
> > files.  If I choose a specific view, like "Detailed," it should
> > remember that for that folder.
> 
> A spatial feature ;-) One of the most confusing/annoying things in windows
> explorer is how it sometimes does and at other times doesn't remember layout.

Spatial feature - blah.  Spatial can't have a monopoly on remembering
window properties like view type.  But I get what you're saying, which
is that only spatial stuff currently has that capability reliably.

> > 5. When you traverse up the directory structure, it should, a la Rox,
> > blink around the folder you just exited.  This may not be useful when
> > moving from, say, /usr to /, but it could help if you're going from
> > ~/downloads up a level - because you might have directories called
> > ~/torrents, ~/gift, ~/media, etc.
> >
> The filechooser buttons solve this nicely by showing the deepest hierarchy in
> the history, i.e. going up one level doesn't remove the button of the last
> directory.

Yeah, I see how that could be useful.  Maybe I need to think about my
thoughts on that.

> Thanks for joining the discussion ;-)

Thanks for replying and getting me in on the fun.  

-- 
Adam Scheinberg
ascheinberg at gmail.com