Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
Locked
12
12
Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
 
|
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andreas Wacknitz <[hidden email]> Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak To: [hidden email] Hi all, I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing with him and now think that he has some valid points. His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes and positions I don't want?" I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change >>initialExtent methods in every class that is involved. But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it possible in Pharo? After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when using a fresh image. But that seems stupid now... His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he lost overview. Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that are common in other IDE's. Regards Andreas |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
Indeed, I'm starting to think that tiling window managers are the only
actual window managers (as in, if you have to move your windows around, _you're_ the window manager). A colleague pointed out, when I questioned his rabid love of tiling, that I've constructed my workflow in such a way as to turn my non-tiling WM into one, effectively. Maybe there's a way of easily leveraging Laurent Laffont's new TVM? - http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/05/tiling-window-manager.html frank On 31 May 2011 07:22, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Andreas Wacknitz <[hidden email]> > Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 > Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak > To: [hidden email] > > > Hi all, > > I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and > Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. > After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing > with him and now think that he has some valid points. > > His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes > and positions I don't want?" > I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class > RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change >>>initialExtent methods in every class that is involved. > But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of > an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is > there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of > windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it > possible in Pharo? > After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and > Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when > using > a fresh image. But that seems stupid now... > > His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. > While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he > lost overview. > Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are > hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that > are common in other IDE's. > > > Regards > Andreas > > |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Frank Shearar wrote:
> Indeed, I'm starting to think that tiling window managers are the only > actual window managers (as in, if you have to move your windows > around, _you're_ the window manager). A colleague pointed out, when I > questioned his rabid love of tiling, that I've constructed my workflow > in such a way as to turn my non-tiling WM into one, effectively. > > Maybe there's a way of easily leveraging Laurent Laffont's new TVM? - > http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/05/tiling-window-manager.html It's not a window manager at all, just a button, that tries to lay out windows as equally sized tiles when you press it. While it's a good start, it's far from a real tiling window manager IMHO. Levente > > frank > > On 31 May 2011 07:22, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Andreas Wacknitz <[hidden email]> >> Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 >> Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak >> To: [hidden email] >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and >> Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. >> After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing >> with him and now think that he has some valid points. >> >> His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes >> and positions I don't want?" >> I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class >> RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change >>>> initialExtent methods in every class that is involved. >> But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of >> an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is >> there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of >> windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it >> possible in Pharo? >> After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and >> Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when >> using >> a fresh image. But that seems stupid now... >> >> His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. >> While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he >> lost overview. >> Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are >> hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that >> are common in other IDE's. >> >> >> Regards >> Andreas >> >> > > |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
On 31 May 2011 09:29, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011, Frank Shearar wrote: > >> Indeed, I'm starting to think that tiling window managers are the only >> actual window managers (as in, if you have to move your windows >> around, _you're_ the window manager). A colleague pointed out, when I >> questioned his rabid love of tiling, that I've constructed my workflow >> in such a way as to turn my non-tiling WM into one, effectively. >> >> Maybe there's a way of easily leveraging Laurent Laffont's new TVM? - >> http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/05/tiling-window-manager.html > > It's not a window manager at all, just a button, that tries to lay out > windows as equally sized tiles when you press it. While it's a good start, > it's far from a real tiling window manager IMHO. Maybe so (I admit I only watched half the demo before Real Life interrupted me), but it's one more ping indicating something potentially worth doing: I'm feeling the lack of a TVM, Andreas W is, Laurent is, ... Anyway, it's the sort've project that'll take up quite some time. I also certainly don't think we should put a TVM into trunk... but it may be a good idea to put _hooks_ into trunk such that someone can easily load up their own WM, tiling or otherwise. frank > > > Levente > >> >> frank >> >> On 31 May 2011 07:22, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Andreas Wacknitz <[hidden email]> >>> Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 >>> Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak >>> To: [hidden email] >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and >>> Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. >>> After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing >>> with him and now think that he has some valid points. >>> >>> His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes >>> and positions I don't want?" >>> I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class >>> RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change >>>>> >>>>> initialExtent methods in every class that is involved. >>> >>> But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of >>> an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is >>> there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of >>> windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it >>> possible in Pharo? >>> After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and >>> Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when >>> using >>> a fresh image. But that seems stupid now... >>> >>> His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. >>> While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he >>> lost overview. >>> Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are >>> hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that >>> are common in other IDE's. >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> Andreas >>> >>> >> >> > > |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by Levente Uzonyi-2
On 31 May 2011 11:29, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011, Frank Shearar wrote: > >> Indeed, I'm starting to think that tiling window managers are the only >> actual window managers (as in, if you have to move your windows >> around, _you're_ the window manager). A colleague pointed out, when I >> questioned his rabid love of tiling, that I've constructed my workflow >> in such a way as to turn my non-tiling WM into one, effectively. >> >> Maybe there's a way of easily leveraging Laurent Laffont's new TVM? - >> http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/05/tiling-window-manager.html > > It's not a window manager at all, just a button, that tries to lay out > windows as equally sized tiles when you press it. While it's a good start, > it's far from a real tiling window manager IMHO. > > the real solution is to change the workflow to not open that many windows. IMO in design desicions, we should always be based on a human capabilities: how quickly human can find a concrete window on desktop, when there are 20 of them open? how quickly he can find a needed window using taskbar, if there are 20 labels in takbar? is there a ways to ogranize workflow to reduce clutter (a more context-oriented workflow), so user can navigate to required point faster? Because what was looked cool 15 years ago.. today is not so cool. > Levente > >> >> frank >> >> On 31 May 2011 07:22, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Andreas Wacknitz <[hidden email]> >>> Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 >>> Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak >>> To: [hidden email] >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and >>> Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. >>> After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing >>> with him and now think that he has some valid points. >>> >>> His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes >>> and positions I don't want?" >>> I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class >>> RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change >>>>> >>>>> initialExtent methods in every class that is involved. >>> >>> But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of >>> an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is >>> there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of >>> windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it >>> possible in Pharo? >>> After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and >>> Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when >>> using >>> a fresh image. But that seems stupid now... >>> >>> His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. >>> While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he >>> lost overview. >>> Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are >>> hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that >>> are common in other IDE's. >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> Andreas >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
On 05/31/2011 02:34 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> window manager can't prevents windows from clutter. > the real solution is to change the workflow to not open that many windows. +1. Look around, every program uses tabbed displays; people like them, they work, no need try something new, just do what works. -- Ramon Leon |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
On 31 May 2011 16:36, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 05/31/2011 02:34 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >> window manager can't prevents windows from clutter. >> the real solution is to change the workflow to not open that many windows. > > +1. Look around, every program uses tabbed displays; people like them, they > work, no need try something new, just do what works. Which reminds me - don't we already have something like that? Tabbed browsing, I mean, not the more general issues around Squeak as IDE. I think I'm thinking of Multi-window browsers, in Preferences? Mm, that's _kind've_ like tabbed browsing, only with a popup menu rather than tabs. frank |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current
setup and the myriad of windows I can open. I like that. I change the colors of windows and titles to help me navigate and find stuff quickly. Tabs would introduce a new constraint of the same level we already have in Squeak - namely the lack of separate system windows (but it's quite easy to work around that one by switching Squeak to full screen mode). Compare the informational value of a window color + window title + window position (old code left top browser, new code right bottom browser etc) with the 5 characters of text you usually get to see on a tab title once you open enough of them. I routinely work with tabbed text editors for non-smalltalk stuff and once you get past 5-10 open tabs, it's rather awful. I can see how people coming from java or something might prefer tabs, at the same time there much worse GUI problems we should fix first - like the freaking context menus being dragged around after you open it and click if you don't move your mouse to hover around a menu entry (why anyone thought dragging a context menu by anything other than the menu bar might be a good idea is beyond me) rado On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 05/31/2011 02:34 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >> window manager can't prevents windows from clutter. >> the real solution is to change the workflow to not open that many windows. > > +1. Look around, every program uses tabbed displays; people like them, they > work, no need try something new, just do what works. > > -- > Ramon Leon > > |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
On 05/31/2011 09:09 AM, radoslav hodnicak wrote:
> Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current > setup and the myriad of windows I can open. I am too, but in spite of all those windows, not because of it. Stockholm syndrome, you've probably just gotten accustomed to it. > quickly. Tabs would introduce a new constraint of the same level we > already have in Squeak Tabs would make it more like practically every other program available that needs multiple edit windows. Tabs are better than multiple windows. Look around, tabs won; the battle is over. Tabbed browsing of the net or 15 instances of Firefox open? Seriously, you think multiple windows are better? Really? > full screen mode). Compare the informational value of a window color + > window title + window position (old code left top browser, new code > right bottom browser etc) Meaningless when I have 15 windows open. Position means nothing, color means nothing. >with the 5 characters of text you usually > get to see on a tab title once you open enough of them. I routinely > work with tabbed text editors for non-smalltalk stuff and once you get > past 5-10 open tabs, it's rather awful. It's vastly better than 15 open windows. > I can see how people coming from java or something might prefer tabs, I'm a pretty solid Smalltalker, my preference for tabs has nothing to do with coming from Java or not being familiar with Smalltalk. > at the same time there much worse GUI problems we should fix first - False dichotomy. You don't ignore one problem because you think others also exist. All problems are valid, no need to shift the conversation to other issues, this one is about tabs. -- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by radoslav hodnicak
> Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current
> setup and the myriad of windows I can open. +1 Stef |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
On 2011-05-31 5:34 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> is there a ways to ogranize workflow to reduce clutter (a more > context-oriented workflow), > so user can navigate to required point faster? Emacs's separation of (nameless) windows from (named) buffers. This is similar to the "multi-window browsers" setup Frank mentioned, and I guess to tabs as well (especially where tabs can be dragged from window to window). Emacs does particularly well here because of its rapid keyboard-based way of choosing the buffer to display in a given window, with completion and so forth. Squeak already has most of what's required here, with its pop-up menus: a pop-up could list the named buffers, and the usual type-keys-to-narrow-the-options would work well to rapidly select the item of interest. The pop-up would be available both via keyboard shortcut and via some on-screen widget. You'd also need to build an Emacs-style buffer-management buffer, for quick mass manipulation (e.g. closing) of buffers. > Because what was looked cool 15 years ago.. today is not so cool. Ironically, in mentioning emacs, I suppose I'm suggesting that what worked well *25* years ago might work well today also :-) Tony |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Rollandin
Whenever I'm to do something out of the ordinary in Windows it becomes a mess of windows with programs and file browsers. Same on a Mac.
Tabs can only do so much when comparing, browsing and editing. Often a open browser showing methods next to what I'm writing is nice.
But tabs would be nice, especially when drilling down implementors chains looking for the right methods for example :-) Karl
2011/5/31 Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]>
|
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
I've worked in VisualWorks for years and routinely had 15+ windows
open (my taskbar is on the left and on autohide, I can pack a lot of open windows before I lose overview). I've also worked in C/PHP/etc for years and routinely had 15+ tabs open in some IDE. I vastly prefer the first alternative, although that might be colored by the fact that Smalltalk IDEs are more helpful than text-ish ones. I don't know why you call that Stockholm syndrome, it's not like I only work in Smalltalk (I wish!). Web browsing is different, the tabs there usually aren't related to each other so the comparison to programming IDEs doesn't apply. rado On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 05/31/2011 09:09 AM, radoslav hodnicak wrote: >> >> Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current >> setup and the myriad of windows I can open. > > I am too, but in spite of all those windows, not because of it. Stockholm > syndrome, you've probably just gotten accustomed to it. > >> quickly. Tabs would introduce a new constraint of the same level we >> already have in Squeak > > Tabs would make it more like practically every other program available that > needs multiple edit windows. Tabs are better than multiple windows. Look > around, tabs won; the battle is over. Tabbed browsing of the net or 15 > instances of Firefox open? Seriously, you think multiple windows are > better? Really? > >> full screen mode). Compare the informational value of a window color + >> window title + window position (old code left top browser, new code >> right bottom browser etc) > > Meaningless when I have 15 windows open. Position means nothing, color > means nothing. > >> with the 5 characters of text you usually >> get to see on a tab title once you open enough of them. I routinely >> work with tabbed text editors for non-smalltalk stuff and once you get >> past 5-10 open tabs, it's rather awful. > > It's vastly better than 15 open windows. > >> I can see how people coming from java or something might prefer tabs, > > I'm a pretty solid Smalltalker, my preference for tabs has nothing to do > with coming from Java or not being familiar with Smalltalk. > >> at the same time there much worse GUI problems we should fix first - > > False dichotomy. You don't ignore one problem because you think others also > exist. All problems are valid, no need to shift the conversation to other > issues, this one is about tabs. > > -- > Ramon Leon > http://onsmalltalk.com > > |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
On 05/31/2011 11:47 AM, radoslav hodnicak wrote:
> I've worked in VisualWorks for years and routinely had 15+ windows > open (my taskbar is on the left and on autohide, I can pack a lot of > open windows before I lose overview). I'd love to see a screenshot of 15+ windows in any useful configuration on a normal sized monitor. I don't think it's possible. > I've also worked in C/PHP/etc > for years and routinely had 15+ tabs open in some IDE. I vastly prefer > the first alternative, although that might be colored by the fact that > Smalltalk IDEs are more helpful than text-ish ones. I don't know why > you call that Stockholm syndrome, it's not like I only work in > Smalltalk (I wish!). It was humor. I'm just pointing out that perhaps you should reflect and see if it's just that you're used to it. As I said, I'm very productive in Pharo with bunch of windows open as well, but it's in spite of them, not because of them. I'd much rather have one browser and a bunch of tabs, so I don't have to hunt for workspaces and transcript windows because so many browsers are open. When I use any other program on windows/linux, I'm never forced to open 15 instances of the same program, this is just another case of Smalltalk ignoring how the rest of the world works. It's being different for no benefit. > Web browsing is different, the tabs there usually aren't related to > each otherso the comparison to programming IDEs doesn't apply. Speak for yourself, mine most certainly are in exactly the same way IDE windows are. -- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
On 31. 05. 2011 18:35, Ramon Leon wrote:
> Tabs would make it more like practically every other program available > that needs multiple edit windows. Tabs are better than multiple > windows. Look around, tabs won; the battle is over. Tabbed browsing of > the net or 15 instances of Firefox open? Seriously, you think multiple > windows are better? Really? Agreed, tabs won, therefore we need to implement it and this will be a big step forward for usability of our tools. Not only for newcomers, for us too. You will see sooner or later that tabbed windows are better than full ones. I had such experience from VW and other VisualWorkers would probably confirm that. Ok, a right combo of both, tabbed and full. Say two browsers windows with a reasonable amount of methods open in tabs. And adding back button .. well that would be near nirvana considering current state :) Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
Janko wrote:
> Agreed, tabs won, therefore we need to implement it and this will be a > big step forward for usability of our tools. Not only for newcomers, for > us too. You will see sooner or later that tabbed windows are better than > full ones. I had such experience from VW and other VisualWorkers would > probably confirm that. Note that the IRC client in Squeak already has tabbed windows, so the needed code is available (I haven't looked at it and would not be shocked if people prefer to build their own rather than reuse it). My experience with tiled and tabbed GUIs is mostly with Xilinx and Altera FPGA tools and their Eclipse based processor development kits. Obviously lots of people like this or it would have been designed differently. But I am not a big fan. Not that I am happy with what we have in Squeak now, though I prefer it. My ideal would be a zooming interface instead. -- Jecel |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
2011/5/31 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> On <a href="tel:31.%2005.%202011%2018" value="+13105201118">31. 05. 2011 18:35, Ramon Leon wrote: Take a look at my multi-window browser in Squeak trunk. Its not tabs. Instead its a drop-down menu from the window title area of windows sharing the one main menu. It works well for me and doesn't waste vertical real estate on the tabs themselves. You can also populate them programmatically, look at openCogMultiWindowBrowser in the VMMaker-oscog fork. You need to enable the Multi-Window Browser preference in browsing and open a new browser to enable them.
HTH Eliot
|
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
differently. But I am not a big fan. Not that I am happy with what we I like Jef Raskin's idea of something like a linear zooming interface (most non-programmers think linearly) per "The Humane Interface".
Imagine something like a whole website or application (or OS) "folded" into, or represented in, an accordion menu, with a fast keyboard short cut for searching "above" where you're at or "below" where you're at. Something a bit like eMacs but more graphical (eMacs content with CSS?). No documents, no pages, no slides, no "beginning" or "ending", just above or below, folded or unfolded, + context. Folded visual content doesn't have to appear like a bar with a phrase. It could be a button bar, or just a single word or letter or icon.
A keyboard shortcut brings your "menu bar" or "toolbar" or "navigation bar" temporarily to your cursor data entry point, to keep your locus of attention from moving too much (because you only have one of those) ... rather than leaving what you're doing to go "top of screen" or "bottom of screen" or "left" or "right", thereby risking losing ones mental context and focus. Widgets, windows, or other visual artifacts can be placed side-by-side temporarily for comparison too by a keyboard shortcut or from a search result. This disciplines one to remember and express "what" one wants and "why", rather than dedicating brain cycles to figuring out "where" it's kept.
|
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
On 31 May 2011 19:35, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 05/31/2011 09:09 AM, radoslav hodnicak wrote: >> >> Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current >> setup and the myriad of windows I can open. > > I am too, but in spite of all those windows, not because of it. Stockholm > syndrome, you've probably just gotten accustomed to it. > >> quickly. Tabs would introduce a new constraint of the same level we >> already have in Squeak > > Tabs would make it more like practically every other program available that > needs multiple edit windows. Tabs are better than multiple windows. Look > around, tabs won; the battle is over. Tabbed browsing of the net or 15 > instances of Firefox open? Seriously, you think multiple windows are > better? Really? > >> full screen mode). Compare the informational value of a window color + >> window title + window position (old code left top browser, new code >> right bottom browser etc) > > Meaningless when I have 15 windows open. Position means nothing, color > means nothing. > at this point i am usually closing everything without even considering what window does what, and start over again :) For my brain it is more than enough: - always see what i am currently editing (so i never lose focus) - 1 or 2 separate areas for various kinds of lookups , like senders/implementors etc etc this is enough for being productive i think. So, i imagine a browser (or just 3 separate areas covering whole desktop), where one is an edit space, and 2 is scratch spaces, where everything i do there can be scratched at any moment by new query. >> with the 5 characters of text you usually >> get to see on a tab title once you open enough of them. I routinely >> work with tabbed text editors for non-smalltalk stuff and once you get >> past 5-10 open tabs, it's rather awful. > > It's vastly better than 15 open windows. > >> I can see how people coming from java or something might prefer tabs, > > I'm a pretty solid Smalltalker, my preference for tabs has nothing to do > with coming from Java or not being familiar with Smalltalk. > >> at the same time there much worse GUI problems we should fix first - > > False dichotomy. You don't ignore one problem because you think others also > exist. All problems are valid, no need to shift the conversation to other > issues, this one is about tabs. > you will still lose time clicking on them till you will find one you wanted. > -- > Ramon Leon > http://onsmalltalk.com > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: Fwd: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
|
|
> +1
> at this point i am usually closing everything without even considering > what window does what, > and start over again :) Ditto. > i dunno. many tabs are not anything better than many windows. > you will still lose time clicking on them till you will find one you wanted. Sure they are, tabs allow you to cycle through windows meaningfully, browser > workspace > transcript > process explorer, without getting stuck flipping through 15+ browsers. Once you've found the program you want, generally speaking, there's a way to cycle through it's tabs quickly to find what you want. Tabs give you context sensitive cycling through open things. Alt + tab through windows, find program, ctrl + tab through open things in that program. Vastly more productive than just having everything open a bunch of windows. More importantly, that's how the rest of the world already works, Linux/Windows/Mac all support this; Smalltalk, no no... so busy worried about inventing the future it doesn't notice it got left behind. -- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |