[Glade-devel] Integrated ui patch

[muntyan at tamu.edu (Yevgen Muntyan)]

Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
>
> > vgeddes at metroweb.co.za wrote:
> >
> > > Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> > >  
> > >
> > > > While I'm on it, here is main thing why single window is not
> > > > good: http://munt.mine.nu:8080/files/glade-sucks.png - you can't expand
> > > > the properties window and widget tree; and note that the window is
> > > > maximized, so I can't click anything behind it.
> > > >
> > > >   
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yevgen, most people who have commented on the new ui are excited by it,
> > > and think it is a good step forward. Which group do we satisfy? the ~90%
> > > who like the the new design or the ~10% who don't?
> > >  
> > It's not a good design, it's monkying gazpacho. Anyway,
> > I just wanted to make sure that you know about those "10%".
> > If majority loves single window, then you of course go single
> > window.
> > But I wonder, have someone actually tried to work with such
> > UI? I did, in gazpacho, and it sucked. You can't use glade
> > right now because of fancy bugs with click-does-nothing.
> > So people "commented" on how it looks, not on the actual
> > interface.
>
>
> I think you are jumping the gun here Yevgen, this is not a story
> about how one patch changed the face of glade forever and
> "monkeyed gazpacho", please - that is a base comment.

Well, if glade returns to multiple-windows setup, or if it will
be at least optional, I'll be happy. But I don't believe it's going
to happen: the former is not possible because folks love fancy
all-in-one thing, and "gzapacho does that"; the latter is not
possible because it's hard to maintain (it's your words, and I
completely agree with this). And, I don't believe someone is
going to research somehow what is better/more usable/something.
It will be as it always is: you, other glade folks just decide
what's better and that will be it. Like, like it normally
happens :)

My response was indeed a bit rude, and it wasn't indeed in the form
I'd really like to use; but I hate "you're minority, you lose" thing.
I've seen too much such responses in GTK (GtkFileChooser, know this
famous guy?), and my natural reaction for that is "so &^%$ you".
I admit, I overreacted. But I love glade! And I hate single-window
gazpacho!

> We want to move forward and bring embedded toplevels and
> (yes many many are in favour of..) the single window layout,
> that doesnt mean this patch is final - one of the main purposes
> of this release cycle is to get the new UI tested and get as much
> comments from the user base as possible - hopefully - if some
> people who do care and are watching (people like you) we can
> get the feedback we need to make the descisions that need to
> be made about the UI.

Right, "hopefully". Do you believe you get anything but "wow
it's awesome", and that these "awesome" have any practical
value (except that "yes we rock!")? I mean, all you can get
is slashdot-like thing, "yes it's cool", "no it sucks".

Glade is a tool, too few people are going to comment on
whether single-window or multiple-windows is better. I am
more concerned, for instance, about lack of helpful menu
items in context menus (those from glade-2). If, say, glade
gets those with multiple-windows layout, it will be *lot*
better than it is now. But single-window layout will
still suck.

So, what I want to say is: one thing is the actual glade
functionality; another thing is convenience: if glade is
the only application capable of doing a thing you need, then
you will use glade no matter what windows layout it has.
Still, if that windows layout sucks, it sucks. And if you
are satisified with the code functionality, you are going
to forget small annoyances. Just like it usually happens -
you use something not because it's perfect but because
it works.

> If we were to use gdl - then the palette and property editor
> could at least be detachable from the workspace/main window,
> it would on the other hand mean that windows builds of gdl
> would have to be properly maintained by someone, are our docking
> needs as complex as what gdl offers ? could we implement something
> simpler inside glade proper to provide a docking mechanism ?
> I dont know - who knows - maybe people dont want dockable windows ?

I have a paned widget with detachable panes here, it works.

> Maybe with a canvas/treeview implementation of the property
> editor it will fit nicely in the space allocated to it in a single window ?

TreeView can save few pixels, but not much. You don't need to try it
to predict that property editor + widget tree won't fit into 768 pixels
minus panel size.

[snip]

> I'd much rather hear about your ideas on how we can make glade
> more usable for you, based on your particular needs - so that we
> can cator to them - this is not and WILL NOT be an "attack vs defense"
> discussion, I really hope were all on the same team here.

To make glade more usable for me, you need to revert it to
multiple-windows layout :)
My particular needs are: see what I want to see in the widget tree,
and see all or almost all properties in the properties editor, when
I need to, without having to resize that stupid paned widget.
When I have many windows, I use Alt-Tab to switch; with single window
I have mouse, it's not going to be nice. Well, *you* know this
stuff ;)

Best regards,
Yevgen