On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 07:04, Dave Bordoley wrote: > Based on the conversation of the 3 daves on irc last nite (watson,camp > and me), I'm only proposing this change as a short term annoyance fix > for the icon view. In the long term I think we need to do some usability > studies to determine how to make the icon view just work. > > some ideas that we threw around include: > 1.automatic layout ala windows(apparently is hard to do with icon > stretching) I havn't followed this thread completely, but auto layout, even with variable-sized items, seems reasonably easy to do: First find out what the grid's horizontal and vertical pitch should be. (This would involve looking at the max/average/most frequent dimentions of the icons.) Second, place the icons in standard left--right, top--bottom order. Place each icon in the next available grid cell. If an icon is larger than the grid cell it's going in, let it spill onto adjoining cells. The only trick I see is figuring out the grid pitch. Too small and many icons would spill over into two, four, or more cells; too large and small icons would be lost. OTOH: something tells me there's a dynamic-programing solution to this, much like optimal line-wrapping. --Ben > 2. always use manual layout, ala the mac and than just implement all the > sorting options for manual layout ala the current arrange options. > > We obviously need to think long and hard about this. > > dave > > On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 17:41, David Emory Watson wrote: > > I don't know since I haven't tried your patch, but I suppose your right > > since Dave Camp's response does suggest that the icon will snap back. > > Sorry... > > > > Originally I was thinking that we would just switch to manual layout > > mode (so as to avoid any confusion between the operation of the desktop > > and the individual windows). This would be more "inline" with your > > original argument (i.e. instead of "if I wanted manual layout I would > > manually change it" we could say "if I wanted auto layout I wouldn't > > drop icons in strange places"). > > > > In any case, I do think the HIG is right about unsolicited dialogs. And > > maybe your right about removing this dialog too (e.g. I have seen my > > brother fumble with it). I guess I just think that we need to be > > careful when we change things that others obviously did *on purpose*. > > > > -- > nautilus-list mailing list > nautilus-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part