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

[Matthew Woehlke]

Diego Moya wrote:
> 2009/7/9 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Diego Moya wrote:
>>> I still prefer the modeless interface in my proposal.
>> ...except your proposal /isn't/ modeless, you are always in mode of
>> having to remember what container "add" will add to :-).
> 
> This is not a mode. It's a button whose action's target changes
> according to the last selected container, yes. But a mode is when the
> current state affects *other* actions as well, such as "start adding
> windows to container until I cancel the adding windows mode".

Okay, it is a "state". Personally I prefer an obvious mode to a less 
obvious state. Maybe that's me?

> It's not clearly defined what other actions (open/close application, 
> maximize/minimize, edit text...) will do while you're in this mode.

Other actions are disabled. This is like a switcher; you pick some 
windows, you are done. You don't do anything else in the middle. It's 
meant to be something that is done quickly.

> Will it remain active forever unless you cancel it?

Yes. Same as how switcher works.

>> Only difference is you explicitly say "I am done adding windows".
> 
> Why would the user want to explicitly say that? What does s/he gain
> for sometimes not being able to add windows to a container?

...not trying to remember what will happen if you click 'add' button?

> The main visual identification would be that of grouped windows in the
> taskbar.

What if I don't have a task bar? :-)

> I suppose that a user using NWI wouldn't need the current
> "group windows from the same application" behavior, since those
> wouldn't match his task requirements (several application instances
> could pertain to different tasks), what she wants is having windows
> from the same task grouped even if those are from different apps.

Good point. Right now the write-up specifies it is still there, but with 
working NWI it is probably worth considering to turn it off by default. 
(Especially if we add DAI container which would allow grouping without 
the other mechanics of containers.)

> I'm OK with d&d. What worries me is the "two clicks for each
> grouping", that's one more click than needed for window IMO. It
> doubles the "group 8 windows to a container" scenario from 8 clicks to
> 16.

It would be ten actions. One to say "I am going to create a container", 
eight for the windows, and one to say "I am done".

...Unless you are doing other things in between adding each of the 
windows, but then we are back to needing to remember what container is 
"active".

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
child: Do not try to read the .sig. That is impossible. Instead you must 
realize the truth.
init: What truth?
child: There is no .sig.