 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:03:55 +0100, ABX <abx### [at] abx artpl> wrote:
>BCB and Delphi of Borland use it. AFAIK BuilderX does not.
>Other builders for UI does not root window too.
And? Is it more intuitive to work that way than in, say, Eclipse or
Visual Studio?
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:12:19 +0200, Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> > BCB and Delphi of Borland use it. AFAIK BuilderX does not.
> > Other builders for UI does not root window too.
>
> And? Is it more intuitive to work that way than in, say, Eclipse or
> Visual Studio?
Hard to say, I do not use it too often. Sometimes it is handy to see window of
other application in background and work on space of IDE with full toolbars
and helper panels.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in message
news:urtg50lm2mpi7jsgm2ri5u8op2gos7jo84@4ax.com...
|
| Yes, that solves the problem of lacking a root window but doesn't
| solve the alt-tab annoyance.
Have you considered using another WM under KDE? The KWin WM usually used
with KDE is AFAIK not very configureable. FVWM, as an example, would
allow you to use sloppy focus with The Gimp (turning any blank desktop
page into a root window) and to thumbnail all of The Gimps windowss onto
the root window for easy selection. FVWM alt-tab list can be configured
to show names as well as icons for each of The Gimp's transients, so the
alt-tab annoyance would disappear as well.
FVWM configuration would be simple, as KDE already provides all needed
menus and panels.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <shhg50t59qu1pn7a21ffg57vhgqfsngbnq@4ax.com> , Peter Popov
<pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> Really? Can you please point examples?
Internet Explorer? Outlook Express - I noticed when writing that post on
Windos, actually - the window in which I types was independent. The same
goes for recent versions of Office. And M$ Developer Studio can only have
one project open per instance, so it is a hybrid (it also uses windows in a
window).
> Is root-window-less design really considered more efficient and if
> yes, why? Can you point some useability studies that prove the point?
> I am asking from a professional point of view, not only from pure
> curiosity.
The point has much less to do with windows inside windows, but with the
location of the menu bar. The point being that screen borders are faster to
reach than any other point on screen with a mouse. Hence a menu bar at the
top of the screen (with menus really get activated when the mouse is in the
topmost pixel row) cannot be missed if you just move the mouse up. Anyway,
as any usability discussion in these groups in the past lead nowhere other
than showing surprising amounts of ignorance of the validity of objective
studies versus personal perception, I try to avoid any detailed discussion
of the subject.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <shhg50t59qu1pn7a21ffg57vhgqfsngbnq@4ax.com> , Peter Popov
<pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
>>Photoshop never featured a root window on the operating system it was
>>orginally designed for.
>
> I believe it was not the case back when I used it on MacOS 7
> (PhotoShop 2.5.1 and 3.0).
I am not sure which way to read this. Either way, Mac OS never had anything
like windows inside windows.
> I am aware of the fact this is so on MacOS
> X but you have to agree, if you have ever used the GIMP, that the
> difference in useability and workflow is vast.
I am not sure which way to read this. Does GIMP have windows inside windows
in its Mac OS X port? That would imply it is one of those crappy Trolltech
Qt framework applications. Note that the Trolltech Qt framework does not
draw system windows. It draws everything itself and provides a miserable
user experience on both Windows and Mac OS X whenever it tries to emulate
things not available on the platform natively (or the GUI changes like with
Windos XP or less so in Mac OS X 10.3). On Mac OS applications that do not
follow the look and feel of the system will be avoided by users like hell,
and they tend to get bad reviews unless the reviewer was paid or is no
regular Mac OS user.
> Of course one should
> solely attribute it to lacking a root window because Adobe shows how
> it can be done well.
Well, ever notice the "Mac"-mode of Photoshop for Windows that places the
menu bar at the top of the screen and makes the root window cover
everything?
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other things, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> Really? Can you please point examples?
>
> Internet Explorer? Outlook Express - I noticed when writing that post on
> Windos, actually - the window in which I types was independent.
One of the big annoyances (for me) of IE and Netscape... It was one of the
reasons I switched to Opera at first.
As for the Gimp, I'm getting used to it, but I agree it's a bit weird when
you come from the Hasefroch [1] world.
[1] See <217.125.124.74/~hsfroch/english.html> or its google cache:
<http://tinyurl.com/34yeg>
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:52:13 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:
>Have you considered using another WM under KDE?
I have icewm installed but am not quite sure how to configure KDE to
use it, and still do it "the Debian way". KDE seems to ignore the
/etc/alternatives/x-window-manager link which kind of puzzles me. I'll
look into it further when I have the time.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <405832a2@news.povray.org>, tho### [at] trfde says...
> Of course, Microsoft has long abandoned this nonsense for most
> of their applications...
>
I assume you are joking? lol Seriously, some cases it is nice to have
floating windows. However, I don't use IE, Netscape, Mozilla or anything
else that opens more than one window without my permission. For browsers
not having a master window (or worse having it decide to create a new one
for no damn reason) is a pain in the ass. Same imho for programs for
photo editing or any other application where you *want* a single key
window that everything else sits on top of.
Good design = using windows in ways that make sense.
Bad design = using windows in some way just because "that's what everyone
is used to, so it must be right".
Gimp gets it wrong in one way imho, so does most of the stuff MS has made
over the years in the opposite direction.
Then again, I am trying to run Gimp under 98, which is, "not suggested",
and not only have most of my tool windows vanished someplace recently,
but it won't print either. Sigh...
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:11:02 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
><tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>
>>Photoshop never featured a root window on the operating system it was
>>orginally designed for.
>
> I believe it was not the case back when I used it on MacOS 7
> (PhotoShop 2.5.1 and 3.0). I am aware of the fact this is so on MacOS
> X but you have to agree, if you have ever used the GIMP, that the
> difference in useability and workflow is vast. Of course one should
> solely attribute it to lacking a root window because Adobe shows how
> it can be done well. But on MacOS X it actually makes sense. In KDE,
> it does not (nor in Windows).
That's because KDE tries its hardest to be Windows. Thankfully, there are
plenty of window managers for X that don't, and the authors of the Gimp
recognize this. Besides, you *can* use hacks such as xnest to get the
behavior you want, which is pretty cool when you think about it. Even
better, I understand that Gimp 2.0 features dockable windows, which allow
you to get whatever behavior you want.
>>Of course, Microsoft has long abandoned this nonsense for most
>>of their applications...
>
> Really? Can you please point examples?
The "bunch of windows in a single window" paradigm is called Multiple
Document Interface (MDI), and I'll confess that I hate it. I've been hearing
a lot lately about Microsoft urging developers to move away from it, but
aside from the lack of MDI in newer versions of Word, I haven't found much
proof to back this up. It could be wishful thinking on the part of User
Interface advocates, but I doubt MS would publicize their change of heart
after convincing everybody to start using it.
-Eamon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:42:51 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>Internet Explorer? Outlook Express - I noticed when writing that post on
>Windos, actually - the window in which I types was independent.
Not the same thing. Imagine how Outlook Express would look if the
groups pane, the threads pane and the message pane were all separate
floating windows and the menu was, for example, in the threads pane
(but some simple menu is also located in the groups/servers pane).
>The same goes for recent versions of Office. And M$ Developer Studio can
>only have one project open per instance, so it is a hybrid (it also
>uses windows in a window).
Yeah, but a single project is contained within a single window. Modal
dialogs etc. do not really count because they make sense in any
context (rootless or not).
>The point has much less to do with windows inside windows, but with the
>location of the menu bar.
Precisely what other PS/OSX users have pointed. I am very much aware
of that fact and this has always been a big pro of MacOS design. I
personally don't like it simply because I almost don't use menus (at
least not with the mouse), but I have witnessed with my own eyes what
difference it makes for the average user.
>Anyway, as any usability discussion in these groups in the past lead
>nowhere other than showing surprising amounts of ignorance of the validity
>of objective studies versus personal perception, I try to avoid any detailed
>discussion of the subject.
Unless you think I have manifested said ignorance, I would gladly take
this over email if you please so as I really want to get some more
perspective on the issue.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
