Re: Pending 1.2 stuff

Havoc Pennington wrote:

Here is a bug on renumbering the workspaces in vertical orientation:

I haven't thought about this at all, so I have no opinion. Just
throwing out the issue.

Since I don't see any explanation for why the change was better, here is an initial basic brainstorm:

Original Bug:
> However, the numbering goes like this:
> 1 5
> 2 6
> 3 7
> 4 8
> It'd be nicer if it's
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
> 7 8

And let me throw in a third contender:

5 1
6 2
7 3
8 4

Arguments for the A) and B), against C):
  o First workspace is in upper-left, last in lower-right

For A) and C), against B):
o The general dimensions are conserved; a strip of workspaces is still a strip of workspaces.

For B):
  o The workspaces read like a book (left-to-right, top-to-bottom).
o If a pager's UI exposes "workspace rows" and "number of workspaces" rather than "grid height" and "grid width" (see then it makes sense for the workspace-grid to be a "wrapped sequence of workspaces" rather than a "static 2d grid". Consequently, wrapping the sequence of workspaces at a different place isn't too big of a deal. But I still think it's confusing.

For C), against A):
o This is a 90-degree clockwise rotation of the horizontal pager. If a user has both a horizontal and a vertical pager visible on the screen simultaneously, the relation between the two pagers is more spatially obvious with this rotation than with A), where the long columns are swapped.

Against B):
o A pair of simultaneously visible vertical and horizontal pagers have a really weird, barely-spatial correspondence.

In the end, I don't see a clear winner or argument for why B) should be chosen. This looks like a hard usability decision. Default to the status quo?

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