Hello, thank you for your active discussion first.
On 5/7/05, Rapha�l Slinckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi ! > > I agree on the theorical "need" of a list of handlers vs. a single > default handler. However, i just don't see a common example of when such > a thing could happen while downloading things on the net. The most > common documents you retreive are plain-text/code/etc (displayed in > epihany anyway), PDF documents (and no i don't need having to choose > from xpdf evince, ggv, gpdf and so on, the one i choose in nautilus is > perfect), and compressed archives which usualy are downloaded instead of > viewed (even then you usually don't have 3 archive managers you use). > > So it's not much a question of is it needed or not, but when and how > often would it be useful. I think a reason why epiphany should give a list is that the most proper handler in file manager might be not the best one in a web browser. For example, when I was enjoying my music files in the local disk, the best application may be a powerful music organizer, that is, the rhythmbox. When I was browsing a online music website, however, I would prefer xmms to rhythmbox, since I had just need decide whether to keep it or simply skip. Well, it is just a sample. You, of course, can argue me that rhythmbox would always not be the default handler even in nautilus. But the only thing I try to prove is that handling local files is a different thing compared with browsing the web, and the web browser should give users a choice about how to deal with it. > You may label me as an extremist, but i find evolution should only give > save as and view with default handler, like epiphany does now (more or > less). The more you add to an interface the more you have to think > before clicking, which is a bad thing, i find :) I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this point :) > Nautilus on the other hand is the heart of file management and as such > it's useful it provides multiple choice on what to do with the file. For > example you have an html file, well it makes sense to choose in nautilus > wheter to view it or open it in gedit, for example. Yes. But I have to go further: I think web browser should provides multiple choice too. > Granted, firefox is not integrated with gnome desktop, and as such has > an awful interface to the underlying native system. > > One more thing: now when it presents you a dialog you have two choices, > open the document, or dismiss the dialog. Simple and straightforward. > Imagine you have now a dialog with a list, you now have to make three > decisions: open it ? how to open it ? or dismiss, the how to open it > comes against the flow of tought when you actually wanted to view the > thing. It's a problem. How to design the GUI is a very important thing. I think a possible method is taking the helper applications list just like the style of `save folder' item in GTK2 save file dialog. That is, when a GTK2 save file dialog is opened, it would ask you where to save. The location is a list in fact, but showed like a button: it would use the default selection unless a user click it. I don't know the terminologies in English. Hope I have described it clearly :) > Do not take me too seriously, though, i'm not a real epiphany > developper :) Just a discussion :) > Raf > > _______________________________________________ > epiphany-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list > -- Hongzheng Wang _______________________________________________ epiphany-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list
