Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Accretion: A QML, Qt 5.2, KDE Frameworks 5 File Browser

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    I like that Dolphin has a lot of options, but it doesn't need to have all of those options front and center by default (which make it behave completely different from 90% of the file managers out there).
    Nemo has options (not as many as Dolphin, but definitely more than Nautilus AKA Files) but they don't shove them in your face. They are there if you want/need them, but by default it gives you a very simple and plain file manager. I think this is a great approach :P
    I couldn't live without a "new tab" and "open terminal here" buttons. It's always annoying to me that they are not in the main toolbar by default (although adding them is easy, it's still additional configuration required).

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    I couldn't live without a "new tab" and "open terminal here" buttons. It's always annoying to me that they are not in the main toolbar by default (although adding them is easy, it's still additional configuration required).
    Yep. Any option that at least one user wants in his main toolbar should be put in the toolbar by default, to reduce configuration needs.
    To be on the safe side, the best bet is to put every single option in the main toolbar: it will even makes things cleaner as we wouldn't need the menu bar anymore.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Secretion is a great name for a file browser! I really think secretion is a name that is going to stick in people's minds

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    But even now that I have proof Dolphin can look good, it still has the weird quirks in functionality coming from something simple like Nemo/Thunar
    Such as?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    Oh wow, I think I struck a nerve.
    No, you are really not that important to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    I think you are mistaking "simplicity" for "inferiority".
    Nah, I tried both Nemo and Thunar and both are just bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    I like that Dolphin has a lot of options, but it doesn't need to have all of those options front and center by default (which make it behave completely different from 90% of the file managers out there).
    How would users discover them? Clicking on the X button to close a panel is always easy. Discovering that the panel exists in the first place is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    Nemo has options (not as many as Dolphin, but definitely more than Nautilus AKA Files) but they don't shove them in your face. They are there if you want/need them, but by default it gives you a very simple and plain file manager. I think this is a great approach :P
    Then use Nemo instead of whining about Dolphin. Why did you switch at all when you like Nemo more?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    Yep. Any option that at least one user wants in his main toolbar should be put in the toolbar by default, to reduce configuration needs.
    To be on the safe side, the best bet is to put every single option in the main toolbar: it will even makes things cleaner as we wouldn't need the menu bar anymore.
    That wasn't the point. The point was that if you have oft-used features that enhance the use of the application a great deal, you're not supposed to hide them. Functionality is better than completely clean looks, especially given the high resolutions of today.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    No, you are really not that important to me.
    Ouch, I feel so hurt

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Nah, I tried both Nemo and Thunar and both are just bad.
    What exactly was "bad" about them? They get the job done, so I don't think they could be bad... maybe "not as good" in your eyes, but bad is pretty hard to do in this area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    How would users discover them? Clicking on the X button to close a panel is always easy. Discovering that the panel exists in the first place is not.
    Going into the settings? If a user is happy, they can stick with what the file manager does. Usually if a user wants additional/different behavior, usually the first place they look is the application settings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Then use Nemo instead of whining about Dolphin. Why did you switch at all when you like Nemo more?
    I haven't switched yet (for other reasons). A file manager is just a part of the DE/WM. I'm just offering criticism about it...
    Though, if we really wanted to get into it (which I don't), I could go ahead and say Dolphin's clutter problem is caused by being a KDE application... I've noticed a similar problem throughout the DE >.<

    Anyway, I can't wait to try out KDE5. It seems like it will be a great step forward.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    It would be nice to have a Qt-only file browser, not related to KDE, for use with LXDE-qt (I know there's Andromeda and now also PCManFM, but I find Andromeda annoying, and it's always nice to have more choice).
    With Qt5 and KF5, all KDE stuff is just a QT Plugin that can be used as any other Qt Module. So every KDE app can be used without pulling every stuff from KF aka KDELibs.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thaodan View Post
    With Qt5 and KF5, all KDE stuff is just a QT Plugin that can be used as any other Qt Module. So every KDE app can be used without pulling every stuff from KF aka KDELibs.
    Just because a KDE frameworks 5 application could have just a few dependencies beyond Qt doesn't mean they will. Something like Dolphin, which leverages a lot of KDE technologies, will likely pull in most of the frameworks anyway, so the situation won't be that much different than today.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    That wasn't the point. The point was that if you have oft-used features that enhance the use of the application a great deal, you're not supposed to hide them. Functionality is better than completely clean looks, especially given the high resolutions of today.
    It totally was the point. E.g.: I don't want a new tab button and I don't want an "open terminal here" button. The important part of your initial post was "it's always annoying to me". To you.

    You can put all the buttons, and go the ribbon way, or hide them all and let users config their toolbars. The best is probably to make your apps send back usage statistics. But guessing users workflow based on your own one is not really the best way to design UI.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •