Fwd: Adding "group/split" button to the decoration

[Matthew Woehlke]

Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 July 2009 00:26:03 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
>>> I like [idea from Diego], but with small correction -- two
>>> buttons "add (to group)", second "ungroup".
>>>
>>> * add -- adding to current container, in case of no container
>>> create default one
>> What is "current container"? 
> 
> Container which is active, has focus (i.e. app inside has focus).
> 
>> Or would this be a button on a 
>> container to absorb a window (with second click)?
> 
> Exactly.

Okay, that makes sense.

>> What about (in addition to above) a button to wrap a window in a
>> new container? It could be a dropdown for container type and also
>> include option to interactively create container.
> 
> You mean wrap = convert? Hmm this means adding another button. And 
> only for such workflow (no irony below, just emphasis).
> 
> * convert app into container
> * oh, I have container now
> * add another app to this container (using 1st button)
> 
> vs.
> 
> * add another app to this "container" (using 1st button; container 
> actually will be created on fly)
> 
> I doubt the first scenario is productive, will be often used, thus I 
> think adding button only for this is too expensive.

Hmm... but then, what container type do you get? Maybe it is better that 
leaves have only 'new container' button (which lets you pick N windows 
and change type while picking, as previously described), and containers 
have only 'add a window' button.

>>> * default -- GAI (because it does not have hidden elements like
>>> TAI)
>> ...missed description of this?
> 
> I don't follow :-) My point was that if you add app to app GAI should 
> be created by default because it is obvious for user what happened.

I see now. Well, if you like the above, this doesn't matter.

>> Diego Moya wrote:
>>> After pressing "split" all the applications in the grid would
>>> still be included in a "virtual group", so that pressing "Tile"
>>> again would restore the grid with all associated applications.
>>> This would also help to bring together all windows in the group
>>> to another virtual desktop.
>> I'm not sure about this, it makes sense, 
> 
> For me no -- because I don't see a purpose. If you want to bring 
> together all windows you don't have to do anything, just bring 
> them -- containers, not containers, it does not matter.

Hmm, yeah, let's forget about the "bring all to another virtual 
desktop"; I agree, don't want to do that.

What about "virtual groups", do you think that is a good idea or not? I 
lean toward "not", seems like it has potential to be confusing. (Well, 
unless implemented as 'undo WM action' ;-).)

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
.sig omitted due to budget cuts.