Re: Can epiphany give a handler list when downloading files


thank you for your active discussion first.

On 5/7/05, Raphaël Slinckx <raphael slinckx net> wrote:
> Hi !
> I agree on the theorical "need" of a list of handlers vs. a single
> default handler. However, i just don't see a common example of when such
> a thing could happen while downloading things on the net. The most
> common documents you retreive are plain-text/code/etc (displayed in
> epihany anyway), PDF documents (and no i don't need having to choose
> from xpdf evince, ggv, gpdf and so on, the one i choose in nautilus is
> perfect), and compressed archives which usualy are downloaded instead of
> viewed (even then you usually don't have 3 archive managers you use).
> So it's not much a question of is it needed or not, but when and how
> often would it be useful.

I think a reason why epiphany should give a list is that the most
proper handler in file manager might be not the best one in a web
browser.  For example, when I was enjoying my music files in the local
disk, the best application may be a powerful music organizer, that is,
the rhythmbox.  When I was browsing a online music website, however, I
would prefer xmms to rhythmbox, since I had just need decide whether
to keep it or simply skip.  Well, it is just a sample.  You, of
course, can argue me that rhythmbox would always not be the default
handler even in nautilus.  But the only thing I try to prove is that
handling local files is a different thing compared with browsing the
web, and the web browser should give users a choice about how to deal
with it.
> You may label me as an extremist, but i find evolution should only give
> save as and view with default handler, like epiphany does now (more or
> less). The more you add to an interface the more you have to think
> before clicking, which is a bad thing, i find :)
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this point :)

> Nautilus on the other hand is the heart of file management and as such
> it's useful it provides multiple choice on what to do with the file. For
> example you have an html file, well it makes sense to choose in nautilus
> wheter to view it or open it in gedit, for example.
Yes.  But I have to go further: I think web browser should provides
multiple choice too.

> Granted, firefox is not integrated with gnome desktop, and as such has
> an awful interface to the underlying native system.
> One more thing: now when it presents you a dialog you have two choices,
> open the document, or dismiss the dialog. Simple and straightforward.
> Imagine you have now a dialog with a list, you now have to make three
> decisions: open it ? how to open it ? or dismiss, the how to open it
> comes against the flow of tought when you actually wanted to view the
> thing.
It's a problem.  How to design the GUI is a very important thing.  I
think a possible method is taking the helper applications list  just
like the style of `save folder' item in GTK2 save file dialog.  That
is, when a GTK2 save file dialog is opened, it would ask you where to
save.  The location is a list in fact, but showed like a button: it
would use the default selection unless a user click it.  I don't know
the terminologies in English.  Hope I have described it clearly :)

> Do not take me too seriously, though, i'm not a real epiphany
> developper :)
Just a discussion :)

> Raf
> _______________________________________________
> epiphany-list mailing list
> epiphany-list gnome org

Hongzheng Wang

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]