On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:53:44AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > >The approach being proposed in the TODO reduces the interaction > >work of the user to basically navigation. Your approach looks > >cumbersome compared to the automatic behavior of the > >TODO-approach. I don't want to define specific heights pro > >managed client, that takes too much time.
> >The idea behind the TODO approach is, that the stacking behavior > >is polished somewhat more, and it will even reduce switching > >modes for most users. Depending on the screen height 2 or 3 > >visible clients pro time will make the maximization quite > >unnecessary and rarely used... > That's not the point. The point is that the proposal is > unweildy. I don't want the middle n clients visible at once > and I certainly don't want them to cycle when I want to show > another window. I never said anything about defining an exact > size, I said it might be nice to collapse the current client, > or split the space, but I'd also be ok with just having a > binding to collapse the current client and uncollapse the one > above/below it. The defined automatic behavior, though, just > seems absolutely terrible in terms of usage, even if it does > 'reduce the interaction work of the user'. I'm not sure I like this. Actually the fs-interface of wmii-3 allows to cycle through /view/sel/* in a column that one could easily collapse/uncollapse clients which belong to a specific column. With a view-specific ctl file this will be much harder and I can't think of a great use in conjunction with your proposal in this case. However I like the collapse idea as an alternative approach... if we'd have collapse and max pro client we would gain more flexibility... Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
