2014-05-30 16:29 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <cedric.kr...@b2ck.com>:

> On 30 May 16:02, Guillem Barba Domingo wrote:
> > El 30/05/2014 0:08, "Cédric Krier" <cedric.kr...@b2ck.com> va escriure:
> > >
> > > On 29 May 20:16, Guillem Barba Domingo wrote:
> > > > > It behaves the same way always. SHIFT-click == open in the next
> right
> > > > > notebook. And menu is considered in the first notebook.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO I mantain the current behaviour of SHIFT+click (current == 3.0,
> not
> > > > PoC), which is open the action in a new Tab despite of reuse the
> current
> > > > tab for the same action.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what you are saying.
> >
> > Just try it.
> >
> > Well, I will be more explicit.
> > Open from menu the list of sales (or tasks or anything): I do it with a
> > doubleclick in the menu entry.
> > Repeat the action. It doesn't open a new tab, it focus on the previous
> > opened tab.
> > Now, repeat the action but mantain pressed the SHIFT key when doubleclick
> > the mennu entry => it opens a new tab
>
> Totally the expected behavior.
> You request to open the window on an other tab so there are no reason to
> not do it.


What I am explaining above is the current behaviour WITHOUT your PoC, and
this behaviour is LOST with the patch.
With the patch, if you want to open more than two times the same menu
entry, you have to move the second tab to the first notebook and
SHIFT+click again, and repeat this two actions for each extra list you want
to open.

For this reason I suggest to separate the two features in two
modifiers/menu options: mantain the current behaviour of SHIT modifier to
open a new tab, and other modifier or menu option (here my proposal of
Split window menu option) for the multinotebook feature.



> > > > But currently it only works when click in menu, not in relate action
> nor
> > > > bookmarks, so I should extend the behaviour to everywhere.
> > >
> > > Still don't understand.
> >
> > And now?
> >
> > > > I should put the feature of split notebook area in the client's menus
> > (in
> > > > existing or in a new "window" menu).
> > >
> > > Don't understand.
> >
> > Your proposal could be called "multi notebook" or "split window".
> > I don't care about the name, but as the SHIFT modifier is already used
> (and
> > it is VERY useful and IMHO more coherent with the "new window" behaviour
> > found in browsers), I propose to have explicit options in menu.
>
> Still don't understand. What are «explicit options in menu»?


Currently (without your PoC), nor the feature of open a new tab for an
already opened menu entry nor the new feature of open in a new notebook
aren't in any client menu.
I propose to have the action to open the second notebook as an option in
"Options / Form" or "User" client menu.



> > I think it majes more simple the behaviour: one action is split the
> window,
> > and it splits the active ones,
>
> Which action?
>
> > and other independent action is open the
> > view (which is opened in the active window or the first one starting from
> > the left).
>
> Which other action?
>
> > This behaviour and menu options are usuak in KDE. I don't know about
> Gnome
> > or OS X.
>
> I don't understand why you are talking about desktop when we are at
> application level.
>
> > > > Maybe it coukd be able the option of
> > > > split vertically (what is done in PoC) and horizontally.
> > >
> > > What is the goal to split horizontally. If it is just for the sake of
> > > having an option, it is wrong. Less option == better UI.
> >
> > For the same than split vertically, make easier to compare or work on two
> > lists or forms at the same time.
>
> So if it is the same, we already have the feature.
>
> > For example, to compare/work on two lists with lot of fields, it's better
> > tow split horitontally than vertical.
>
> Don't think any layout will fix that because it is the task that is
> not userfriendly.


It doesn't matter if the task is not userfriendly if the user must to do
it. It will be more friendly if the layout help him.

-- 
Guillem Barba
http://www.guillem.alcarrer.net

Reply via email to