On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:15:47PM +0000, Mark Gibbens wrote: > >(1) I *really* like the way wmii has come to revolve around one > >principal window management model. The column model is as close to > >perfect as I can currently imagine. I think adding different > >management models again would be a step backwards. There is an > >inspiring purity of concept with wmii and I like the idea that you can > >move closer to perfection by a process of constant simplification. > > Another aspect of the model is that there are exactly two levels: the > columns and the windows within the columns. Your suggestion is to add > another level whereas my suggestion is to keep the number of levels > the same.
I think a row-based analogue of the column layout is so conceptually similar that it wins over the idea of creating yet another layer. > > (2) Horizontal stacking (or "shunting"?!) seems ugly, to my mind. The > > only way I can think it might be achieved would be to revolve window > > titles 90 degrees. This would start to break down the consistency of > > interface. Also we are used to reading text horizontally, so vertical > > reading would become more difficult (Though I imagine there could be a > > strong case for vertical text flow in some languages). This is indeed a problem - I'm very much a fan of the stacking mode, but I think you're absolutely correct when you say vertical bars will be difficult to read no matter which implementation was chosen. OTOH, I think we would need vertical bars for consistency of navigation (the idea of using h and l to switch between horizontally stacked clients just doesn't seem right). I tend to remember windows by position rather than inspecting the titles, so I think this may be a relative non-issue for me personally. > > (3) I think that multiple rows, each containing the familiar column > > layout, would be much more useful and flexible that the entire screen > > being either columns or rows. I think those people who were around before wmii-1 will agree when I note that usability and flexibility can be very different things. The layout model in pre-1 was incredibly flexible, and also rather unusable ;-) > > This follows on logically from what we've got, rather than > > reimplementing it in a different but equally limited way. Yes, equally limited, but in a *different* way. All the corner usage cases I can think of right now which I have wanted to use - but which are left out by the column mode - are covered by an analogous row mode. > >I see your point! > >On the other hand, there are already three levels - windows, columns > >and tags. One branch of my original idea was simply to show multiple > >tags on the same screen. > > Ah, I had read that but then forgotten. That is indeed quite > elegant. It would also merge well with Xinerama: If there is support > for showing more than one tag on screen at the same time, we might as > well show them on different heads. Having unions of tags on the same screen was a concept that was briefly played with in the past (just after tags were first implemented) but discarded as not very useful. That was without the idea of a row-mode however. Note that a row mode of 1+2 would clash with any clients tagged as 1+2 - IMHO a nasty IMHO corner case... Personally I don't think I'd use this much, but I can see how it would be very desirable from the xinerama point of view. Thanks very much for keeping the rest of the list in the loop :-) ~Chris.
