Hi,
at first one question: why was the shortcut for the location combobox changed
from "Alt+" to "Alt+C" in KDE 3.5 ? "Alt+" now opens the Tools-menu. I (and
I'm probably not the only one) was very used to it.
, and now some comments to the usability report published here:
-the functionality of the info list view should be merged into the other list
views, makes one view less. I'd really like the text view and the detailed
list view to stay. How about removing the tree view ? A combination of the
navigation side bar and the detailed list view is very similar
-How about just keeping the icon view and the list view and maybe one or two
more in the toplevel "View -View mode" menu and introducing a submenu "View
-View mode -More View modes" for more obscure view modes ? Could this be
implemented via an option in the desktop file describing the view part ?
-The gallery view is nice, but IM only a workaround to the problem, that
currently it is not possible in konqueror to switch from an opened file in
konqueror to the next/previous file. If this would be possible, the gallery
view wouldn't be needed at all, it would work with the normal image view,
text view etc.
-The info in the tooltip: how about adding a view which shows this info and
which sits e.g. on the right side beside the icon view ? (i.e. a bit like in
the Mac S X finder) ?
-editing files: an easier way to edit files is required. How about forgetting
about the "view-only" paradigma of konqueror ? if a file is previewed,
place an "Edit" button/icon/rmb entry somewhere ?
-kfind: is it still required for KDE 4 or will it be replaced by
tenor/kat/XXX ? Some improvments would be easy to do, but I won't do it if it
will be replaced for KDE 4 anyways.
And yes, I plan to work on these things (not all of them, and I don't have too
much time to do it, but I'll try my best).
But at first we should discuss these things.
Is this actually the right place or should this happen on one of the usability
lists ?
Bye
Alex

Monday 02 January 2006 01:34, Luciano Montanaro wrote:

Is there some feature of the tree view that can be hard to use (and to get
accustomed to) for beginners? I'm not too familiar with other operating
systems, but I think the old M "Finder" had a similar view, and if it
is an interface already learned by our potential users I think it would be
useful to keeo it.

I found the feature of the tree view to expand the directories always a bit
strange. In the other views you always see the contents of one directory, in
this mode you can see the contents of multiple directories.
Back then in 2000 I implemented the TextView and I still use and prefer it
over the other ones.
So I'd say both should be kept, but IM moved to the "advanced" views.

Bye
Alex

Monday 02 January 2006 00:53, you wrote:
Sunday 01 January 2006 15:09, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Hi,

at first one question: why was the shortcut for the location combobox
changed from "Alt+" to "Alt+C" in KDE 3.5 ? "Alt+" now opens the
Tools-menu. I (and I'm probably not the only one) was very used to it.

It wasn't. It's automatic accelerator management moving it to avoid
conflict due to a (now fixed) KPDF bug which created 2 tools menus. (The
normal accel for tools is 't').

Hmm, today it's Alt+ again. Not ideal, I'd say.

Alex

Monday 02 January 2006 15:40, you wrote:
Monday 02 January 2006 14:51, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Monday 02 January 2006 01:34, Luciano Montanaro wrote:

Is there some feature of the tree view that can be hard to use (and to
get accustomed to) for beginners? I'm not too familiar with other
operating systems, but I think the old M "Finder" had a similar
view, and if it is an interface already learned by our potential users
I think it would be useful to keeo it.

I found the feature of the tree view to expand the directories always a
bit strange. In the other views you always see the contents of one
directory, in this mode you can see the contents of multiple directories.

Well, sure. That's actually the reason I use this view. But while it is
unique between konqueror views, its behaviour is used in other KDE
applications. For example, the Amarok collection view is very similar to
that.

Back then in 2000 I implemented the TextView and I still use and prefer
it over the other ones.

Can you explain why? Is it because it is faster, or for the color-coding
of the contents, or is there anything else?

Several minor things, together they make it quite mc-like
-the color coding and the symbol-characters (* for executable, @ for a link)
-the rows are a some pixels lower than in the detailed listview, so more rows
are visible at once
-the focus rectangle is drawn over all columns, not only the file name
-mimetype-lookup is delayed, so it should load directories a bit faster (not
sure this is still the case, at least it was intended this way)

Maybe there are more small differences, but I'd like to keep them.

As I said, I normally use the "normal" icon view the tree view, and the
specialized views. I don't use the other variations of the icon/list views,
so I may be missing something.

I think it would be useful to clarify between ourselves what's good in each
view (and maybe check out other file managers out there) and take the best
things of each to "distill" in, I'd say, two main filemanager views.

So I'd say both should be kept, but IM moved to the "advanced" views.

That would be ok with me, too.

Again, what about the "Multicolumn icon view"? Is there anybody using it at
all? Trying it I have found out that it reserves little horizontal space
for file names. For example, it splits "Documents" in two lines on my home
computer, where I probably use a slightly larger font than the default.

Code-wise it was very easy to implement, only a handful lines of code. Not
sure anybody uses it. Windows explorer provides such a view too.

Bye
Alex

Mon 02 Jan 2006 12:40, Luciano Montanaro wrote:
Again, what about the "Multicolumn icon view"? Is there anybody using it at
all? Trying it I have found out that it reserves little horizontal space
for file names. For example, it splits "Documents" in two lines on my home
computer, where I probably use a slightly larger font than the default.

I use it, and have no problems with it. (I don't tend to have very long
filenames, though, and on my setup it displays
"" in a single line.)

Mon 02 Jan 2006 15:13, Luciano Montanaro wrote:
So there must be some kind of initialization problem on my side.
Did you change the default icon text width? Things got better when I
changed it from the default value, that is, the text space automatically
accomodates reasonable sized icon text.

If the default value is 600, then yes, it seems I'm using 900.