Re: [wmii] wmii-4 fs proposal/discussion

El 09/jun/2006 a las 09:41 -0300, Bill told me:
> On 6/9/06, Fernando Canizo <conan_AT_lugmen.org.ar> wrote:
> >El 09/jun/2006 a las 07:21 -0300, Anselm told me:
> >> New (proposal):
> >Since you are considering modifying the fs, please take in
> >consideration my sugestion for tags having an order property, so we
> >can have ordered tags without having to put numbers in their names or
> >relaying on strange names.

This should be a foot note, but i will put it here: please don't do
top posting, it's ugly. Take the time to correctly format your mail
so i don't have to do it for you.

> (NOT intending to sound negative)
> It sounds like you're still trying to think of tags as workspaces. TAGS !=
> WORKSPACES. Uriel beat that into my head. And, for once, I'm glad he did.
> By insisting that you need tags listed in a specific order, you're not using
> them correctly. In fact, listing them alphabetically is the only correct
> way to use tags - because they are a dynamic set of all existing items...
> not an ordered list.

It seems that you have the universal truth on this.

> They were, while in development, originally mapped to numbers. That, IMHO,
> was GREAT for development - BAD for philosophy. Too many people have
> mistaken them as workspaces. First thing anyone coming to WMII should do is
> to start mapping them to short words. Like you did with dev and web. But
> at that point, don't think of it as a "dev space" or a "web space" -- but as
> "a set of all dev windows" or "a set of all web windows". Ordering them
> left and right only confuses the idiom. (and for the same reasons, I can't
> stand the "choose next tag" shortcuts that people are requesting.... because
> it encourages an incorrect view of the environment.... but I love the
> mappings of first tag to "$MODKEY-1", etc that some wonderful saint posted
> to the code snippets page - not because of "first" or "second" but because I
> can count when I look at the bottom left of the screen :)

Yeah, you *must* count, and that's the all point i'm trying to make
here.

All this philosophy stuff sounds great. If we could have the tags the
way they are now and just think of one to go there it would be the
coolest thing.

But the present fact is this: you have to *go* there. You have to
press some buttons to present the desired view. So why have i to
re-learn where is my stuff every second?

Uriel and the "dinamic gang" are trying to convince us that we use the
computer in a very dinamic way, or should be. But this is a half truth.

The reality is that even Anselm has a set of predefined
tags/views/workspaces/whatever (is all almost the same) which he
doesn't change and that he likes to be *static*. (he told me this on
irc).

In particular i have this set of tags i use 99% of the time:
'chat' 'mail' 'web' <set of dinamically created and deleted tags> and
'z' for a root term which is always handy.

I like to press mod-1 and be sure i'll be going to my 'chat' view. I
don't want to have to look my bar and "count" to know where could be
my 'chat' view now.

So, i agree that computer use involves some dinamic changing of the
views, but not for all things, there are things you want to put
somewhere and let them stay there, fixed.

> I agree that your workspace names are mangled. But I think that your mental
> picture of the window manager is just slightly incorrect. I promise I'm not
> trying to sound negative.

I don't get what you try to say with "negative", anyway i don't "hear"
you negative, i hear you like you have the real and only truth on gui
use. When in fact it's more a thing of taste. Why i'm "incorrect" and
you (or Uriel) are correct? Just cause you use the word "philosophy"
a lot?

With the request i'm asking for, the users like you will not notice any
changes. And users like me or Anselm (no matter he don't like what i
proposed) will have a way to get a set of fixed tags, plus the set of
dinamically created/destroyed tags.

I see this as the "best of both worlds".

And remember: i'm viewing this from a practical point of view, in the
end we always will have to press keys.

-- 
Fernando Canizo - http://www.lugmen.org.ar/~conan/
Se fue como quien se desangra