Jesse wrote: > Yeah, right. Admit it, you read the Etoile archives, compiled all the > ideas in there into one document, and now you're claiming it as your own > work. Do you work for Microsoft? ;)
I go by the name "Narcoleptic Electron", and wear this mask and spandex, so that my mild-mannered secret identity can go unknown and unattributed. Innovation for innovation's sake, my friends! The promise of fame can only corrupt. Also: If I worked for Microsoft, you would have seen all of these features "appear" amidst the Longhorn vapours by now. And then Apple would have implemented it. And then Microsoft would have removed it from the Longhorn feature list, after realizing that it was beyond their skill to implement. > If we think of "iconified" as "miniaturized", this is exactly what I propose. Iconified is like "closed": the contents of the window are not visible -- only some sort of icon representing the window. In order to "open" it again, security credentials would need to be provided. It could not be a thumbnail, as that would reveal potentially secure information within the window. > Explain "scrolled" more. What is scrollable? Where did the previously > squished windows go? Each workspace is a scroll view, containing windows. "Squishing" the contents of the workspace causes the contents of the scroll view to be compressed such that they are all visible in the workspace window without scrolling. The workspace window stays the same size. At this point, clicking a compressed window within the workspace causes the workspace contents to become "unsquished" again, and it automatically scrolls to the window that you clicked. > Similar to what I'm calling Project View (Overview) and Document View, I > would assume? I think so, but I find the "project" and "document" terms confusing because they already have very specific meanings for me. I prefer to use the "zoom" terminology, as it better indicates the closure of the concept. For example, a user can select a workspace window and zoom into it, making it full-screen. Then the user can select one of the windows within it, and zoom into that, then zoom out again, etc. > As long as it's not possible to inadvertently zoom out one depth too far > (from your home workspace to the users workspace) and then have to > re-login. A window would not "close" (iconify) unless the user explicitly did so. Zooming out to the top-level workspace would show the window you came from in its "open" (manually-resizable) version. > Yep -- unless you create a copy of a workspace, then it creates copies of > all the files contained within. Yep. Ideally some sort of "copy on write" deal. > I'd like to hear more: I think right click and double click have their > purposes, as long as they're dedicated to doing only one thing (perhaps > right click brings up context/pie menu and double click is used only for > zooming, for example). I'm also interested in using mouse gestures in the > interface (mouse gestures are really just marking menus: pie menus which > don't show the pie). Thanks. I'll try to write up a proper article about my ideas and put it somewhere. > Further evidence of an ideosphere we're all tapped into... or maybe we're > just all reading the same 3 usability books. :) I think that is more likely. I probably came up with the core of this idea about 2 years ago. > Talk to Quentin or Nicolas (do you have admin rights?) about getting wiki > access and start posting your ideas in the appropriate spots. Right on. No admin rights yet (this is my first post to Étoilé, I think). N. Electron
