Hybrid window mode

I'm so sad this proposal did not trigger any further discussion. I really
think that concurrent modes design is a mistake. It does not solve anything
about mwm, it increases complexity to maintain safe (sync'ed ?) layouts, and
one month after proposing my hwm I still consider it to be worth it...
I hoped my proposal to be discussed to prevent unnecessary work. If it's not
detailed enough, or not even suitable to Gimp, at least please explain why.

Regards,
Damien.
2010/1/8 Kao <angekao@gmail.com>

> I've been thinking about all the stuff around the new single-window-mode to
> be introduced hopefully in 2.8, and particularly got interested in guiguru's
> explanations of what this could be.
>
> And I have things to say about that. The following will be a little
> sarcastic, because with all due respect, I know out of experience that it's
> hard to challenge a guru's opinion in people's mind when you are a newbie,
> so I have to do it both with arguments and bullets. Please consider that if
> I was yet seen as a trustworthy developer, I would have got rid of the
> bullets.
>
>
> I will focus on this article describing the early _real_ concept of swm :
> http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2009/09/gimp-single-mode.html
>
> I agree with the intro, the lack of a non overlapping window mode is a big
> issue and it needs to be solved, however there are people loving the good
> old multi window mode so it needs to be kept.
>
> Then I don't agree with the assumptions made further, at the end of the
> document guiguru states :
> "But I actually expect that once single-window mode is out there, there
> will be pressure from the community to have a look if multi-window mode
> cannot be done a bit more, well, modern."
>
> That really sounds like "let's do an awesome swm just for us, and those mwm
> morons will crave for it" [sarcasm, please don't jump on this]
> Of course this is invalidated by the introduction of new features from the
> swm redesign in mwm, such as multi columns dockables... but I don't buy the
> idea that you would voluntarily get rid of 50% of people's unconscious need
> for a better design that easily.
>
> Three problems :
> - no tear off : I agree with that, image tear-off makes the usability all
> undefined... but hell, this does not mean multiple windows are dead.
> - no side-docking to multi windows : wtf ? There i totally disagree, this
> is inconsistent, and this would lead to maintain two parralel user
> interfaces because you weren't able to get them merged, and furthermore,
> this is a good example of what mwm morons (I am one of them) would crave
> for.
> - no image comparison : multiple windows can save you.
>
> Tomorrow starts now :
> Polaroids are introduced here.
> Well, those mythic cameras are dead and it's really sad, but even if those
> windows looks all vintage with their paper-white border, don't expect that
> they will replace multiple windows efficiently. Moreover, what is the point
> of making a non-overlapping design if you introduce MORE overlapping feature
> as polaroids will not be handled by the window manager ?
>
> Here you create special case #1 : viewers instead of gimp windows, dumbed
> down windows that you cannot work on. Viewers may be a useful feature for
> both swm and mwm users, but it's IMHO not the key feature for people who
> want to _work_ on multiple images/views at the same time.
>
> the decline and fall of tabs :
> Parade is introduced here.
> Tabs are silly, I'm OK with getting rid of them. So you introduce the
> not-that-recently well established concept of parade, a list of thumbnails
> which will contain current works in progress and the history, all with their
> colorful thumbnail, then the open status of an image starts to blur and blah
> blah... Ok just split up that parade into opened images and history ones,
> this is just Images and History dockables.
>
> Here you create special case #2 : a new mandatory wasting space widget for
> a concept that is already implemented in mwm gimp. Awesome. It can be hidden
> ? Then what is the difference with a dockable ? Just merge existing ones and
> enhance them.
> It can be docked on every side of the image ? Look at mockups : people also
> want a horizontal mode for nearly all dockables, and toolbox, maybe toolbox
> first. Why creating such a special case ?!
>
>
> Now let me introduce hybrid window mode.
>
> Why do 50% of users not love mwm ?
> - It's overlapping
> - There are too many windows when too many images are opened
>
> Why do 50 % of users love mwm ?
> - They can efficiently use their virtual desktops, or their dual monitors.
> - They can work on several images/views at a time
>
> What you are doing with swm is create a new box for the first category,
> without solving the problems that still exists for the second. Do you REALLY
> believe that mwm users are NOT bothered by the same issues ? Do you REALLY
> believe that swm future users wouldn't ever want to use dual monitors or
> work on more than one image ?
> I don't buy that. I don't buy a solution that is splitting up a community
> instead of trying to solve problems for both.
>
> Brainstorming :
> Let's start from the actual swm design. There's tab or parade, whatever.
> You can tear off dockables as you want.
> Now as we seen it, parade is just a redesigned Images+History, so let's get
> rid of that. What remains ?
> A gimp image window, where dockables can be docked, and which is (KEY
> FEATURE THERE :) DECOUPLED from the image it's aiming at. That is the thing
> to conciliate mwm users ans swm ones on one point : too many windows. Don't
> create a new window for every images, re-aim windows instead. That is a swm
> behavior that mwm users WANT too, even if they don't want it enough to drop
> mwm. Parade/Image swhitchin widget will then be kind of mandatory, but it is
> really a better trade-off than losing the whole mwm power.
>
> Tearing off windows : it's bad, undefined behavior and so on, but that was
> a limitation induced by Image/window coupling.
> Don't tear off images to expect a window coupled to this image, create a
> new window which can aim at ANY opened images instead. Then you only have to
> bother the active window.
>
> Who owns dockables ? Active window, you only work on it, you cannot work on
> an inactive window so the problem doesn't even exist : reparent them to the
> image displayed by the active window for docked ones, undocked ones keep
> their behavior (auto follow or not).
> This is almost explained by the following png :
> http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/9765/hybridwindowmode.png
>
> Advantages :
> - Less windows, only the necessary number of displays, not one for every
> single image. There can be one (swm), two, three, with 1 or 10 images
> opened.
> - Non overlapping design accessible to all.
> - We love virtual desktops and dual monitors
> - No special cases features.
> - Old school mwm can be handled only by recoupling Image to windows.
> - One design to rule them, and in free software to bind them.
>
> This would IMO efficiently merge swm and mwm, sharing advantages from both
> for everyone. That is a design I can buy.
>
> Thank you for reading, apologies for bullets. Comments appreciated.
>
> Damien.
>

Damien wrote:

> I'm so sad this proposal did not trigger any further discussion.

I had not forgotten about it, but a serious reply is serious work.

actually, a serious reply means solving the open issues around this
theme, some of which you pointed out in your, ehm fiery, posting.

--ps

founder + principal interaction architect
man + machine interface works

http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture

On 2010-02-08 00:40, Damien de Lemeny-Makedone wrote:
> I'm so sad this proposal did not trigger any further discussion. I
> really think that concurrent modes design is a mistake. It does not
[cut]

I think one of the reasons for this is that your emails are treated as
spam by Google Gmail. I don't know why...