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

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:53:44AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> >The approach being proposed in the TODO reduces the interaction
> >work of the user to basically navigation. Your approach looks
> >cumbersome compared to the automatic behavior of the
> >TODO-approach. I don't want to define specific heights pro
> >managed client, that takes too much time.

> >The idea behind the TODO approach is, that the stacking behavior
> >is polished somewhat more, and it will even reduce switching
> >modes for most users. Depending on the screen height 2 or 3
> >visible clients pro time will make the maximization quite
> >unnecessary and rarely used...

> That's not the point. The point is that the proposal is
> unweildy. I don't want the middle n clients visible at once
> and I certainly don't want them to cycle when I want to show
> another window. I never said anything about defining an exact
> size, I said it might be nice to collapse the current client,
> or split the space, but I'd also be ok with just having a
> binding to collapse the current client and uncollapse the one
> above/below it. The defined automatic behavior, though, just
> seems absolutely terrible in terms of usage, even if it does
> 'reduce the interaction work of the user'.

I'm not sure I like this. Actually the fs-interface of wmii-3
allows to cycle through /view/sel/* in a column that
one could easily collapse/uncollapse clients which belong to a
specific column. With a view-specific ctl file this will be much
harder and I can't think of a great use in conjunction with your
proposal in this case. However I like the collapse idea as an
alternative approach... if we'd have collapse and max pro client
we would gain more flexibility...

Regards,

-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361