Apologies for this: I (or Gmail) accidentally took the conversation
with Kai offlist. Here's a digest of the missing messages...
------------------
[mark_AT_flet.org - 11:02]...
On 14/02/07, Kai Grossjohann <kai.grossjohann_AT_de.verizonbusiness.com> wrote:
> Mark Gibbens <mark_AT_flet.org> writes:
> > I don't feel at all comfortable with the notion of a "row *layout*",
> > as implied by Kai and Chris.
>
> Why not?
(1) I *really* like the way wmii has come to revolve around one
principal window management model. The column model is as close to
perfect as I can currently imagine. I think adding different
management models again would be a step backwards. There is an
inspiring purity of concept with wmii and I like the idea that you can
move closer to perfection by a process of constant simplification.
(2) Horizontal stacking (or "shunting"?!) seems ugly, to my mind. The
only way I can think it might be achieved would be to revolve window
titles 90 degrees. This would start to break down the consistency of
interface. Also we are used to reading text horizontally, so vertical
reading would become more difficult (Though I imagine there could be a
strong case for vertical text flow in some languages).
(3) I think that multiple rows, each containing the familiar column
layout, would be much more useful and flexible that the entire screen
being either columns or rows. This follows on logically from what
we've got, rather than reimplementing it in a different but equally
limited way.
M.
-------------------------------------------
[kai.grossjohann_AT_de.verizonbusiness.com - 11:38]...
"Mark Gibbens" <mark_AT_flet.org> writes:
> On 14/02/07, Kai Grossjohann <kai.grossjohann_AT_de.verizonbusiness.com> wrote:
>> Mark Gibbens <mark_AT_flet.org> writes:
>> > I don't feel at all comfortable with the notion of a "row *layout*",
>> > as implied by Kai and Chris.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> (1) I *really* like the way wmii has come to revolve around one
> principal window management model. The column model is as close to
> perfect as I can currently imagine. I think adding different
> management models again would be a step backwards. There is an
> inspiring purity of concept with wmii and I like the idea that you can
> move closer to perfection by a process of constant simplification.
Another aspect of the model is that there are exactly two levels: the
columns and the windows within the columns. Your suggestion is to add
another level whereas my suggestion is to keep the number of levels
the same.
I just happen to think that the direction you are proposing is
backwards :-)
> (2) Horizontal stacking (or "shunting"?!) seems ugly, to my mind. The
> only way I can think it might be achieved would be to revolve window
> titles 90 degrees. This would start to break down the consistency of
> interface. Also we are used to reading text horizontally, so vertical
> reading would become more difficult (Though I imagine there could be a
> strong case for vertical text flow in some languages).
Ideas: Provide rows but without stacking (only provide maximized and
default modes).
If you are worried that rotated window titles breaks down consistency,
then perhaps we could also rotate the status bar to retain the
consistency :-)
> (3) I think that multiple rows, each containing the familiar column
> layout, would be much more useful and flexible that the entire screen
> being either columns or rows. This follows on logically from what
> we've got, rather than reimplementing it in a different but equally
> limited way.
Yes, wmii's window layout model is limited, and people perceive that
as an advantage rather than a liability.
Kai
------------------
[mark_AT_flet.org - 12:13]...
Thanks Kai: interesting thoughts :)
> Another aspect of the model is that there are exactly two levels: the
> columns and the windows within the columns. Your suggestion is to add
> another level whereas my suggestion is to keep the number of levels
> the same.
>
> I just happen to think that the direction you are proposing is
> backwards :-)
I see your point!
On the other hand, there are already three levels - windows, columns
and tags. One branch of my original idea was simply to show multiple
tags on the same screen.
Combining multiple tags (in multiple managed areas, arranged in rows)
on the same screen would create an additional logical level - giving
us windows, columns, tags and screens - but it wouldn't require any
additional *navigation* levels.
Perhaps I'm now defending a visibly weakening argument?
In fact, I'm now warming a little bit to yours/Chris's alternative.
Just don't give me a vertical status bar - yuck!
Best regards,
Mark.
-------------------------------------------
[kai.grossjohann_AT_de.verizonbusiness.com - 12:48]...
"Mark Gibbens" <mark_AT_flet.org> writes:
> Thanks Kai: interesting thoughts :)
>
>> Another aspect of the model is that there are exactly two levels: the
>> columns and the windows within the columns. Your suggestion is to add
>> another level whereas my suggestion is to keep the number of levels
>> the same.
>>
>> I just happen to think that the direction you are proposing is
>> backwards :-)
>
> I see your point!
>
> On the other hand, there are already three levels - windows, columns
> and tags. One branch of my original idea was simply to show multiple
> tags on the same screen.
Ah, I had read that but then forgotten. That is indeed quite
elegant. It would also merge well with Xinerama: If there is support
for showing more than one tag on screen at the same time, we might as
well show them on different heads.
Now I am warming to your idea!
> Combining multiple tags (in multiple managed areas, arranged in rows)
> on the same screen would create an additional logical level - giving
> us windows, columns, tags and screens - but it wouldn't require any
> additional *navigation* levels.
Very clean conceptually.
> Perhaps I'm now defending a visibly weakening argument?
No, you are strengthening your argument.
> In fact, I'm now warming a little bit to yours/Chris's alternative.
> Just don't give me a vertical status bar - yuck!
Let me see whether I can find a tongue and a cheek so I can put one
into the other...
Kai
Received on Wed Feb 14 2007 - 14:15:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:21:07 UTC