On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:25:51AM +0100, Kai Grossjohann wrote: > "Anselm R. Garbe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't understand why people ask for such mixture-layouts (in > > dwm we had the same discussion already). Actually, I think you > > only need such mixture layouts, if your screen is too small. So, > > the real solution for the problem in my eyes is: wether use a > > floating setup, or buy a bigger screen. > > I don't understand why you think of the layout as "mixture" any more > than the existing layouts are mixture. > > wmii currently divides the screen into columns, each of which can be > in stacked, maximized or default mode. > > It seems rather obvious to offer as alternative to divide the screen > into rows, each of which can be in stacked, maximized or default mode. > > Well, one would have to rotate the window titles (and put them on the > left or right edge of a window) for a sensible implementation of > stacked mode for rows, so perhaps one would like to forego stacked > mode for rows. Or one takes a look at wmx and realizes that it looks > quite visually appealing to rotate window titles. > > And I also fail to see in what way the navigation would be more > difficult when navigating rows as opposed to columns. Well, I use > vi-like keybindings where h/l navigate between columns and j/k between > the windows in a column. When the screen is divided into rows > instead, then one would like j/k to navigate between rows and h/l to > navigate between the windows in a row. > > wmii could display some views in column layout (as it does now) and > others in row layout. There could even be a command to switch between > the two types of layouts.
Well what you describe might be doable, however I doubt people will like vertical titlebars (although it is very easy to achieve, X doesn't cares so much how text is mapped)... Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
