On 6/30/05, Biju Chacko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Benedikt Meurer wrote: > > This would be that we need to remember the chosen view per directory. We > > can do that, no problem, just the question: Should we actually do it > > that way? > > Absolutely not. Not unless we are providing a spatial mode in which all > sorts of folder-specific settings are saved.
I think that view saving is very useful, but I suspect you are right. Down that path lies hybrid spatial-navigational madness. Windows XP's basic thumbnail view really just seems like the pretty standard thumbnail view of other file managers, just with large thumbnails and spacing. I would argue that this is just the basic thunar icon view with thumbnailing turned on. I would just make thumbnailing optional, put it in the icon view, and provide a toolbar button for those who need to alternate. People who would really make use of it keep all their images in a single folder anyway, so leaving it on most of the time is only a small performance hit (hopefully, since there are no thumnailable objects in other folders), or a small click overhead (one click when decending into their ~/images folder, for example). My opinion at any rate. I'd like to see harder numbers on the thumbnail performance before we decide. (Sorry I'm late, was out of town again) > > -- b > _______________________________________________ > Thunar-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev > -- "This brings me back to a time where I had no worries. All I needed to do was watch Perfect Strangers." -Erik _______________________________________________ Thunar-dev mailing list [email protected] http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
