Switchers as arrangement managers
mw_triad at users.sourceforge.net
Sat May 2 02:09:13 CEST 2009
Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
> It seems for me, that we could simply say that exchange is switch,
> in exchange mode. Or like this:
> if mod+X is any of the switcher keys, then
> mod+EXCH+X is any of exchange keys, when EXCH is exchange modifier.
> And for auxiliary switchers, the same EXCH+[aux.keyboard.shortcut]
> runs auxiliary switcher in exchange mode.
Um... Okay, I think I see how this would work, in this mode you would
pick a window, and the currently active window would be switched with
the picked window (which need not have the same parent!).
But I don't think that level of integration should be a priority. As
currently defined, we have "keys which will start a switcher", and "keys
used in a switcher" (which are supposed to be the same, but may have
semantic differences*). Tapping one of the former is effectively "quick
switch without a switcher"; I'd envision rearrangement to be more like
that than 'use the switcher'.
(*This makes me think maybe spatial u/d/l/r shouldn't start switchers,
those being the ones I would see as behaving different, and also because
I don't see the advantage to those invoking the switcher.)
Oh, and, an example:
If I start at A, and rearrange next twice, then without a switcher I
would expect A->B, B->C, C->A (that is, B winds up where A was, C where
B was, and A where C was). But with a switcher (assuming a switch left
then down follows the same order), I might expect A and C to switch, and
B to stay put. I think what I would argue here is that normal
rearranging should always be "instant" (first result, i.e. everything
gets shuffled around), and aux-switcher rearranging should always result
in exactly two windows changing places, and everything else staying put.
Well... those are my initial thoughts. Having written them, I realize I
am not fully convinced; what do you think? (Also, I wrote the above
before reading your second post; do you mean that you would rearrange by
using a switcher, always in 'exchange two windows' mode, by doing like
you are going to switch, then using a 'swap this and currently-active
window' button? It is more keystrokes but I think it has potential to be
simpler, and as you say, is fewer shortcuts - and more importantly,
fewer precious modifier keys - used. Anyway I don't want to throw out my
other thoughts, so there they are.)
Thinking about switchers brings up another point; spatial next/previous
*does* need to stay at least for switchers that don't have a concept of
up/down/left/right :-). (Which is to say, the WM will need to have a
concept of all windows of a given parent in two ordered one-dimensional
lists; one for spatial, one for historic. Whether or not to expose key
bindings to navigate this way could still be debated, but it's really
only a question of if they are exposed; the WM will need to basically
"support" them regardless.)
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
"Will somebody get this walking carpet out of my way?!"
-- Princess Leia Organa (Star Wars IV)
More information about the Kde-usability-devel