Re: Viewports and gnome 2

[Ken Witherow <phantoml rochester rr com>]

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Gaute Lindkvist wrote:

> > administer are open in another viewport, etc. Everything is all nicely
> > laid out and I never have to dig through windows to find what I currently
> > need to work on, just click the viewport I want to go to in the pager or
> > navigate to the next window via edge flipping in a nice 2D plane.
>
> This is totally possible with Workspaces. Even edge-flipping.

It is possible but is it implemented? Why drop such a sensible feature in
gnome 2, especially when it's less confusing than how things stand now?

> > Sometimes, I'll deliberately straddle a window between two viewports
> > so I can see if it's updates while I'm doing some work in/jumping back and
> > forth between those two viewports. I completely lose this functionality in
> > a workspaces only environment.
> No you wouldn't. It is perfectly implementable in a Workspaces-only
> environment.

all of the previous discussion I've read (and my own anecdotal tests) says
that one of the things missing in the current workspaces implementation
is that you won't be able to have a straddled window show up in two
workspaces at the same time.

> > This still doesn't
> > consider all of the extra bloat and work required to make EVERY app out
> > there support text boxes with scroll bars in case someone decides to use
> > it in a way that most others might not. This is like saying every console
> > app should have to know how to manipulate the screen/display on all
> > architectures rather than having a library they all have in common that
> > can do the work in one place rather than to constantly have to duplicate
> > functionality. Isn't one of the big selling points of gnome 2 it's
> > shared component architecture? At the same time, some are suggesting that
> > some code shouldn't be shared.
> >
>
> I'm not sure how to reply to this. All apps NEED to do this already. If an
> app doesn't support text-boxes with scrollbars and instead NEED several
> viewports to work. The app would leave out 95% of all users.
>
> Secondly. This isn't bloat. It is a necessity. Are you suggesting that the
> gnome-terminal shouldn't have scrollbars because it could just rely on
> several viewports?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm alluding to here. Let's say I'm
viewing database tables in a text box in my window. On both sides of the
text box are various widgets which the app puts in the window. The maximum
width of my text box is the resolution - the size of the neighboring
widgets, window border, etc. With viewports, I stretch the window into the
neighboring viewports making the usable portion of the text box my full
resolution wide (thus increasing the amount of simultaneous data I can
see without scrolling).

> Why not? Do you REALLY need to have one window overlap several viewports?
> Keep in mind that moving the app between workspaces, using the keyboard or
> edge-flipping is still usable.

absolutely. As stated before, it's common for me to open up a xchat
window, gaim window, etc and straddle it between 2 viewports so I can
immediately see if it's been updated if I'm flipping back and forth
between two viewports doing work. I shouldn't have to switch back and
forth every couple seconds to see if my window is updated simply because
I was using it in the other workspace a minute ago. Talk about a
productivity killer.

> In addition, this is just a few applets. If enough people really need
> viewports they just have to create their own applet. The rest of GNOME
> (including Sawfish) still support viewports.

Why completely eliminate in the first place instead of making it optional
and defaulted off? I find it to be a major regression that I can't do the
same things in gnome 2 that I did in gnome 1. The overlapped window is
extremely important to me.

> > I'm all in
> > favor of keeping the desktop system as it was in gnome 1.x but if it
> > really is "too confusing", I don't understand why it shouldn't remain a
> > configurable option at a minimum.
>
> Because it was a configurable option, and it WAS confusing. GNOME had TWO
> almost completely overlapping features that seriously confused newbies.
> It even confused me, and a couple of my coworkers, and we are rather
> experienced users.

So we should eliminate options and make everyone conform to what someone
else says is ideal. Let's all pack up shop and move to windows since 90%
of the market likes it.

> No, GNOME 2 is trying to be something simple, usable and powerful..
> but not just a combination of all the features that have ever existed on
> any desktop-system.

It is no longer powerful - functionality is being dropped in the name of
simplicity and the functionality that remained is less usable than the
functionality that was removed.

> > To wrap up, the functionality of viewports is beyond critical for me -
> > it's a showstopper. None of the other toys in gnome 2 can persuade me to
> > adopt it in favor of gnome 1.x if I can't continue to be as productive as
> > I was before (viewports mean that much to my productivity).
>
> I still don't see why. You mentioned that some OTHERS liked one insanely
> wide gnome-terminal on several viewports, but you didn't state your
> intention.

I've used them for when I'm editing large tables - it's easier to read
than having to scroll every time I want to see a hidden column. I used the
example because someone else had a day or two ago.

> If GNOME 2 is supposed to satisfy everyones old habits, there would have
> to be a lot of extra emacs-like and vi-like features. There would have to
> be configuration-options for everything. It would become insanely big and
> bloated, and it would end up satisfying NOONE.

we're not talking about changing habits, we're talking about removing
perfectly good functionality from people who depend on it to try to entice
new users to come and play. So, we alienate those currently using the
software to try to attract people who may or may not want to use it.

> > As long as
> > gnome 2 lacks the feature(s) of gnome 1 that I need, I will remain with
> > gnome 1 (or possibly switch to a fork of it or another manager which
> > supports my needs should gnome 1 EOL and no longer function in the
> > future).
>
> Are you aware of the amount of features that are asked for in this manner?
> Why should exactly YOU be satisfied, but not others?

How is requesting previously existing functionality remain requesting new
features? Why is it right to assume what satisfies you (removing
functionality people have a use for)) satisfying to others whom depend on
it?

> To summarize:
> - Workspaces in GNOME could have just about everything you list as a
> necessity. The only thing missing would be windows overlapping several
> viewports.
> If this is that much of a deal to you. Implement a new pager and taskbar.

Why implement a new pager and task bar when it was already done to begin
with and dropped in favor of what some usability expert liked better? And
once again, the overlapping windows is vital to me.

-- 
 Ken Witherow <phantoml AT rochester.rr.com> ICQ: 21840670
  http://krw.2y.net  <- so good, it's censored in China
    Linux 2.4.18 - because I'd like to get there today
to remain free, we must remain free of intrusive government