On 1 Nov 2011, at 14:53, Rob McBroom wrote: > On Nov 1, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Tim Lawson wrote: > >> Nooooo!! Please keep the Finder way of always copying because although I >> understand the frustration of some, I think the majority will likely be >> confused if you were to make such a change and then you'd be fielding a load >> of questions along the lines of"I didn't mean to move my file... where's it >> gone?” > > The copy action does what you want already, so I don’t see what you’d be > losing. The move action doesn’t do what a lot of other people want it to do, > so I can see what they’d gain. > > If someone gets confused that a file has moved after they explicitly move it, > ummm… ;-)
Of course, I take your point - and I didn't really make myself clear. It's just that when it comes to moving file(s) to a different volume, it copies, not moves. That could, for some, perhaps be the confusing thing. This is one of those instances where I feel it's important to look at things from the end-user pov rather than as someone who is as close to what QS does as we may be and there are plenty of people who don't get that moving to a different volume using Finder requires holding down the Option key to 'not just copy'. >> Of course, if copying to a different volume using Finder, you can always >> hold the option key down to force a move. Could QS be equipped with a >> similar way of adding a modifier to achieve this? That'd be cool :-) > > Choosing the move action instead of copy strikes me as the Quicksilver > equivalent way to force a move. We could make them alternates for each other > (where you’d hold ⌘ to reverse the behavior), but that might be confusing > until we make alternates more discoverable. The whole thing is only an issue when a different volume is the target, as I've said (apologies for repetition). How do you mean "reverse the behaviour" in this instance? > > -- > Rob McBroom > <http://www.skurfer.com/> >
