Re: [Usability] Spatiality does not mean that navigational facilities cannot exist

Kalle Vahlman wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:26:45 +0100, Maurizio Colucci
<seguso forever tin it> wrote:

But the point I want to make is: WHY DO I HAVE TO RENOUNCE TO THOSE
reason for this; that you are interpreting the spatial metaphor in a
uselessly restrictive way: the spatial metaphor only means that a
nautilus window must represent a folder. So, INSIDE the window you
cannot have, say, a list of recent places, or a list of bookmarks, which
have no relation with the folder. So far so good. But this does NOT
imply that a global sidebar with recent places must not be available!

Why should it be a sidebar?

Look at it this way. Do you use tabbed browsing? I suppose so. Would you like it if the tab-bar became a popup list? I guess not: the popup list would become a "bottleneck": a small clickable area by which you have to pass each time you want to switch window. But switching windows is too *frequent* an operation for the list to be popup.

And IMO this would be even worse for switching between folders: switching folder is an even more frequent operation that switching web page. So it is even more necessary that the folder list be always on screen.

Secondly, as someone who regularly uses the history sidebar in nonspatial nautilus, I am of the opinion that the space the sidebar takes is not missed, since the sidebar is only visible when you are browsing files. This is of crucial importance. I would not like to see the sidebar when, say, I am checking mail. Also, I would not like to have to hide the taskbar each time I activate Evolution.

("whip up" is a relaxed way to say "desing a good algorithm to find
out which visited folders are actually worth to keep in the list" ;)

IMHO, every folder should be in the list. Then you sort it by recent usage, and you truncate it at, say, 30 elements.


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