Re: My Critics about nautilus

[Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:19:09 +0200, Ingo Ruhnke <grumbel gmx de> wrote:
> Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com> writes:
> 
> >> http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/tmp/kdesucks/nautilussucks.png
> >
> > So you don't have any files/folders that have over 3 letters in their
> > name? Perhaps it would be useful to show file/folder names ranging
> > from 3-20 letters at the same situation to actually have something to
> > discuss.
> 
> The tighter view does still have enough room for 10-15 letters and
> even if that isn't enough, you just break the lines or go for
> "myverylongfilen..." style names.

The three-dots-cut is useless if you have some periodic data which has
a common prefix.

> Beside that, I am not saying that
> the screenshot shows the perfect layout for the icons (its just a
> quick mockup by doubling the number of icons in the window)

...which also ignores the fact that preview icons are not always the
same size as the  folder icons.

> the current icon layout is by far to wide, making it extremly hard to
> browse larger directories, since to much scrolling is needed.

I can't imagine how your konqueror and rox images fit say 1000 images
on that same area, you still need to scroll like crazy (unless you use
type-to-find) and I guess it's besides the point to actually see what
the file contents is (instead of just the name).

> >> http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/tmp/kdesucks/nautilus-fileview.png
> >
> > If you want the listview,
> 
> I don't want Nautilus detailed listview, for larger directories it is
> even more useless than the iconview, since the number of visible files
> goes down to something like 10-15 there

Fair enough. I was actually thinking the smallicons view, but now I
have a faint memory that it was dumped a loooong time ago (IIRC due to
being unmaintained or something), correct me if I'm wrong.

But it's not really fair to make nautilus look deliberately bad. The
same view with text below the icons is far more organized than with
the texts next to icons (which, in my opinion, is horribly broken and
as such should be removed), even with the tight layout setting (which
actually should be renamed to something that would reflect the fact
that it doesn't keep the icons aligned, but instead uses as little
space between icons as possible).

> show double as much icons, a proper smallicons view like in rox or
> konq on the other side is able to display like 70-90 icons in the same
> window.

Sure, but think how much space those 70-90 unusably small icons take?
You could go over 100 with text-only!

Seriously, it's not good to stuff things too tight, it makes the
browsing even slower. And I browse my images (and other stuff for
which there is a preview) by contents anyway, making the icons too
small is not going to help locating things.

-- 
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi