Am Mittwoch, den 13.07.2005, 10:41 +0200 schrieb Alexander Larsson: > On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 14:11 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote: > > Am Montag, den 11.07.2005, 13:23 +0200 schrieb Alexander Larsson: > > > On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 19:25 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote: > > > > Am Freitag, den 08.07.2005, 18:32 +0200 schrieb Alexander Larsson: > > > > > > > I don't see why we shouldn't offer external apps as a fallback if > > > > Nautilus can't display an URI. People obviously want [1,2] this feature. > > > > The onliest reason why one would like to see why displaying a particular > > > > location by Nautilus failed is for debugging purposes, and since we > > > > (hooray for OSS!) have printf debugging, there is IMHO no reason to > > > > display this dialog if we haven't utilized all available funds for doing > > > > what the user wants - displaying an URI. > > > > > > Given that the location bar is pretty hidden these days I think > > > extremely few people will try to use this feature. Maybe one in ten > > > thousand or so. Not adding this feature doesn't hurt these people much > > > (its a small feature and they can use the run dialog which does it > > > better). > > > > > > However, if we add this feature the primary feature of the location bar, > > > namely entering a directory, will be hurt, > > > > A few remarks: > > (1) "Run Application" is totally hidden, even more than the location bar > > (2) People don't suppose that they can enter URIs in the "Run > > Application" dialog > > But they do suppose they can enter files in the location uri? How come > they suppose one thing, but not the other? Even windows allows you to > type in folders and files in the run dialog. Does windows explorer > handle typing in a filename in the location entry? The "Run Application" dialog isn't discoverable enough - it doesn't even have a widget. People see an URI entry and enter stuff - I'm convinced that they expect that what they entered is opened, whatever app is launched. Epiphany does the right thing, although only for its registered protocols. > > > since the error dialogs and > > > behaviour when accidentally entering a file name or a non-existing > > > directory name will be confusing. > > > > (5) we can fix that. We can tell the user that Nautilus wasn't able to > > display the location and there was no external application capable to do > > so. > > I guess we could add this if we make absolutely sure the error dialogs > in the case of "no file" or "no app to launch the file with" are non > confusing in the context. I.E. they don't assume the user knows he tried > to execute a file instead of going to another folder (which was the > operation he requested). Well, we could only try to launch alternatives for files that are not folders. Why should fooapp be able to handle a random directory which Nautilus can't. -- Christian Neumair <chris gnome-de org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part