[Thunar-dev] * ala firefox

[masse nicolas]

--- Benedikt Meurer
<benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de> wrote:
> Emil Jacobs wrote:
> >>Hello!
> >>
> >>Here is another suggestion from another pesky
> little end user! ;) ...
> >>
> >>I know that you have desided not to use a spatial
> filmanager and you want this to be a small and
> easy-using little thing and I dont know is someone
> aks this allready ... but what about adopting tabs
> from firefox?
> >>
> >>I know that it is a bit unnecessary if you already
> have a sidebar for orientation and bokmarks ... but
> sometimes you want two or more filmanagers open for
> comparison or to quick copy between them or
> something like that ... but you dont want a lot of
> windows open that clutter up your screen ... Tabs is
> something I really like with firefox and I think it
> could be a good idea for a filemanager too!
> > 
> > I second this wholeheartedly!
> > I also believe that tabs are a very handy feature,
> it should at least
> > be an option for users to have. The very succes of
> konqueror as a
> > filemanager proofs that (I know a lot of persons,
> including myself,
> > that use konqueror in their respective environment
> without ever using
> > kde).
> > But it seems that the main developers (afaik read:
> Benedikt) hate it
> > for some weird reason, I would like some good
> explaination on why
> > really (besides "bad habbit" I got thrown at in
> irc ;))
> 
> In my opinion, konqueror is overly complex. It's the
> opposite of 
> simplicity (speaking solely about the file manager
> now). Open Konqueror 
> and the first thing you see is about 31(!)
> interactive UI elements 
> (where the menu bar counts as 1 single control and
> not speaking about 
> scrollbars). For such a simple thing like a file
> manager this is quite a 
> lot! There was a professional usability review of
> KDE some time ago and 
> the result was that KDE's UI's are too complex and
> too inconsistent. 
> Maybe they fixed a few of that issues in the
> meantime. I'm looking at 
> Konqueror 3.3.2 (default config) now and it still
> features the same 
> horribly overloaded UI that was critized in the
> usability review. Just 
> my very personal opinion, tho.
> 
> And now on to the tabs: They add little to no value
> to a file manager, 
> as you don't use a file manager like a terminal
> emulator or a web 
> browser (well, maybe you do, but the average user
> does not). Instead it 
> adds a lot of complexity (both in the UI as there's
> another level of 
> sensitivity for the elements, and in the
> implementation). I'd say too 
> much complexity for a version 1.0 of a _simple_ file
> manager.
> 
> And I don't think that this "very success of
> konqueror" proofs anything. 
> I think a lot more people are using ROX with Xfce,
> but that doesn't make 
> ROX very successful.
> 
> Remember, Thunar is not meant to replace all
> existing file managers. If 
> you need tabs in a file manager, use Konqueror.
> 
> I hope you'll understand how important it is to say
> "no" to certain 
> requests to keep the software simple, lightweight
> and easy to use.

Also I think this will be sense redundant with the
PathBar (It behave quite the same way).

> 
> > Cheers
> > Emil
> 
> greets,
> Benedikt

Masse Nicolas.

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


	

	
		
Découvrez nos promotions exclusives "destination de la Tunisie, du Maroc, des Baléares et la Rép. Dominicaine sur Yahoo! Voyages :
http://fr.travel.yahoo.com/promotions/mar14.html