Re: Named, persistent workspaces



On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:33 PM, David Prieto <frandavid100 gmail com> wrote:
> Elia,
>
>> Each time I log into G-S I have to arrange things so that those spaces
>> are created and placed in the correct order (because I want to use my
>> spacial memory to navigate them, and because if I don't it screws up
>> my memorized numeric shortcuts). That includes launching applications
>> I don't need right now just to keep spaces open in the correct order.
>> Even worse, if I mistakenly close the wrong window causing a workspace
>> to be scrapped, I have to start shuffling windows around to restore
>> the correct disposition of spaces.
>
> I can relate to that. Do you think that being able to reorder workspaces via
> drag and drop would help you with that problem?
>
>>
>> I think that the "naming" mechanics would reflect very naturally a
>> habit many users will form anyway: those users that have a somewhat
>> stable usage pattern would find useful if the environment could be
>> "tagged" to facilitate their orientation
>
> Funny that you used the word "tag" there. How about the workspaces
> themselves were still dynamic, in that they would disappear when empty, but
> you could still give them names (tags) and these tags would be persistent?
>
> E.g. you have two applications used for media editing (e.g. openshot and
> jokosher), and want them in their own workspace, separate from the rest. You
> tag both of them as "media edit" apps. As long as you're not using either
> everything works as usual, but when you launch jokosher, instead of opening
> in the current workspace, it opens in the empty workspace (which is then
> tagged "media edit") and a new workspace appears. You keep working on
> something else and after a while you launch openshot, which instead of
> opening on your current workspace opens on the "media edit" workspace.
>
> That way we keep the simplicity of having only one type of workspace (that
> is, dynamic ones) but you get the benefits that persistent workspaces would
> give you. How would that work out for you?
>

D-n-D reordering would be great, but would not solve all the problems.
For example, your tag idea has some good points, but I see the
following problems with that approach:
- it only makes sense in combination with "always open application X
on space named Y" code. This is not that useful for browsers, editors
and all other applications that don't exist in single instance. I
can't use such tags for all my work projects, as they all use the same
set of applications.
- I would still need to rearrange the workspaces all the time to keep
them consistent with my memorized set of number-based key shortcuts.
Drag and drop would make it quicker and less tedious, but it's still
an utterly stupid sideffect of the way we identify spaces, inflicting
work on the user for no good reason.
- there is an informative value in an empty box with a label on it: if
my "incoming applications" workspace is empty, that means something to
me (It's something i have to do this week, but I'm done processing
them for today, for example). More than not seeing such workspace in
my list.

I think that the difference is conceptual: I think that spaces, by
being given a name and purpose, should become first-class citizens.
They have a sense just by being there, as instruments of activity
organization. Whereas you seem to try to re-conduct _everything_ to
the currently running applications and currently open windows.
I can pin down applications I like in the dash, and they don't
disappear when I stop them as unpinned applications do, because I
decided that for my habits that's useful to me. Shouldn't I be able to
do the same with spaces, and would it be so terribly confusing for
users that already have two kinds of icons in the dash - with very
similar behaviours?

-- 
    Elia


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