On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 18:55 +0100, Thorsten Wilms wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:40:20PM +0000, Calum Benson wrote: > > > > http://thorwil.affenbande.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/header_04.png > > > > > > In this example, no sorting can happen on size and date (filenames, > > > having to be unique in every folder, are a terminator). So I left > > > out any indicator there. The alternative would be a disabled state > > > (grayed-out). > > > > Hmm, I wonder if allowing some columns to be non-sortable really adds > > much, other than complexity to both the visual and conceptual model. Is > > there really ever any reason to actively prevent the user from sorting > > by a particular column if they really want to? If it doesn't make > > conceptual sense to sort a particular column, chances are they just > > won't bother trying anyway. And if they happen to try a non-sortable > > column first, they might well assume that the whole table is > > non-sortable. > > It wasn't meant as preventing, but rather as indication of the fact > that in my example nor further sorting can happen. > I thought it should look cleaner than using a grayed out disabled > state.
Actually, the file names you see don't have to be unique in a particular folder, because Nautilus doesn't always display the actual file name. mkdir test echo "[Desktop Entry]\nName=test" > test/test1.desktop echo "[Desktop Entry]\nName=test" > test/test2.desktop nautilus test -- Shaun _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
