[Bulk] Re: RFC: KRecentFilesAction: hide urls

[Thomas Zander]

On Thursday 12 April 2007 14:38, Johnathan Burchill wrote:
> > I'm against hiding the url information. Although it may be
> > application dependend. In kate/kwrite at least it is bad, because the
> > numbering is arbitrary you can't tell eg what Makefile, Makefile(1),
> > Makefile(2),Makefile(3) .... are, so the recent file acation would be
> > quite unusable for me.
>
> If we're not going to have the option of hiding the url information,
> then what is the point of having the short name?

To make it easier to read by making sure the user does not have to scan to 
the last directory separator and start to read.

> IMHO it is application-dependent. In KDar the archives usually have
> unique names with dates automatically written into the filename. 

How did you reach that conclusion? Is it impossible to move the files?  Or 
have them on several remote locations?
You assume that users of KDar are somehow different from the set of users 
that also use this action, and you are leaving all users of KDar with a 
slightly different UI from the rest of KDE.   As well as those that do 
not follow the 'wanted' way of working with a clumsy UI.

> Long 
> pathnames can be harder to scan than just the list of short names.
> Particularly true when all of the files are in the same "backup"
> directory. 

If there was just one directory the user could ever put his files in, then 
sure.  Is that the case?

-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070412/4bacbc5a/attachment.sig>