On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:27:34AM +0100, Marek Bernat wrote:
> considering it is natural both at the bottom and at the top.
Then let's make it a bitfield :-)
Regards,
Christian
--
Christian.Garbs.http://www.cgarbs.de
Wanna make fast? Press shift a
Well, I checked the bottom bar on my own, and sorry, I have to
admit it sucks. This is because the left part of the bar is
rather obtrusive and if you work near the bottom in the master
terminal regularly, I get distracted quite often. So I'm no
bottom bar user.
However, to allow consolidation on
>>> sender: "Stalwart" date: "Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:27:45AM +0200" << I like the idea of statusbar being window caption + pager + infobar. I
> can't imagine it on bottom
+1, that's exactly what I like about the top bar as well.
Cheers,
Alex
On 2/8/07, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well the BORDERPX is a widely used constant in the code, and
with high resolutions it makes sense to use 2px instead of 1px.
The BORDERPX does not produce conditional code, whereas an
option for top or bottom bar does. Hence I want remove su
On (08/02/07 09:41), rumpel wrote:
> I read an article last year which says that 80% just looks first at
> the top left corner (i think people who read books from right to left
> would look at the top right corner :D), so the bar at the top should
> be there. Basically the bar shows you at which de
On 2/7/07, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there,
What do you think? Do you know of any papers (eg comparing the
Apple top bar vs Windows bottom bar)? Are there any rational
reasons why the bar belongs to the top or bottom?
(Actually for terminal users a bottom bar seems better,
I read an article last year which says that 80% just looks first at
the top left corner (i think people who read books from right to left
would look at the top right corner :D), so the bar at the top should
be there. Basically the bar shows you at which desktop you are and so
you can find this poi
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:28:50AM +0100, Marek Bernat wrote:
> Hi,
> I am content with the bar at the top. But as a matter of fact, I was content
> with it being at the bottom in wmii. Therefore I do not think it matters
> much. People could find some reasons, but mostly they would
> argue irratio
Hi,
I am content with the bar at the top. But as a matter of fact, I was content
with it being at the bottom in wmii. Therefore I do not think it matters
much. People could find some reasons, but mostly they would
argue irrationaly (not logically) for what they are used to.
On 2/8/07, Anselm R. G
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 10:42:07AM -0600, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> I think a bottom bar is also probably better for GUI users; that would
> put the "File, Edit, View..." menu at the top of the screen. You
> wouldn't have to aim as carefully. It would also fit in better for
> dwm at least: the bar in
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 04:30:10PM -0500, Ross Mohn wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 17:21 +0100, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> > I'd like to consolidate the bar position of dwm, dmenu and wmii.
> > Apart from being used to, I don't see many reasons in the top
> > vs. bottom discussion. But having the bar
Hi!
I use the bar in the bottom. It looks more natural to have it directly
above the status lights of my Thinkpad. So I have all important
information in the lower right corner, the window title in the lower
center and the tags in the lower left. I don't have to find the top of
the screen first.
I like the idea of statusbar being window caption + pager + infobar. I
can't imagine it on bottom
On 2/8/07, Christian Garbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 05:21:57PM +0100, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> (Actually for terminal users a bottom bar seems better, because
> the promp
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 05:21:57PM +0100, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> (Actually for terminal users a bottom bar seems better, because
> the prompt is more often near to the bottom than to the top)...
That's exactly the reason why I like the status bar at the top:
I have the shell prompt (or the irs
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 17:21 +0100, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> I'd like to consolidate the bar position of dwm, dmenu and wmii.
> Apart from being used to, I don't see many reasons in the top
> vs. bottom discussion. But having the bar in a fixed position
> means, that we don't need any nasty toggles.
Tako rzecze Kurt H Maier (w e-mailu datowanym 2007-02-07, 10:42):
> I think a bottom bar is also probably better for GUI users; that would
> put the "File, Edit, View..." menu at the top of the screen. You
> wouldn't have to aim as carefully. It would also fit in better for
> dwm at least: the b
I usually have nmaster set to 2 (sometimes 3), so weechat input line
is in the middle of the screen
On 2/7/07, Antoni Grzymala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tako rzecze Anselm R. Garbe (w e-mailu datowanym 2007-02-07, 17:21):
> (Actually for terminal users a bottom bar seems better, because
> the
Tako rzecze Anselm R. Garbe (w e-mailu datowanym 2007-02-07, 17:21):
> (Actually for terminal users a bottom bar seems better, because
> the prompt is more often near to the bottom than to the top)...
Hi,
I tend to keep my prompt near the top. Pressing ^l is probably the most
common control sequ
I think a bottom bar is also probably better for GUI users; that would
put the "File, Edit, View..." menu at the top of the screen. You
wouldn't have to aim as carefully. It would also fit in better for
dwm at least: the bar in dwm is really a status bar, and not much
else. Sure you can click t
Hi there,
I'd like to consolidate the bar position of dwm, dmenu and wmii.
Apart from being used to, I don't see many reasons in the top
vs. bottom discussion. But having the bar in a fixed position
means, that we don't need any nasty toggles.
What do you think? Do you know of any papers (eg comp
20 matches
Mail list logo
