![]() ![]() Proper integration with the file manager's features. This way, it's easy to tell which pane is active, but it's a subtle change when you switch from one to the other.Ħ. The active pane has that bar shaded in gray. PowerDesk Pro has a good implementation of this - it has a single header bar for each pane which lists the path of the directory that's active in that pane. As I said in an earlier post, I feel like I'm about to have an epileptic seizure when I'm constantly switching from one pane to the other. However, personally, I find it extremely annoying when the entire background of the pane changes color to indicate this. This is necessary to account for many actions that could be executed - KB shortcuts, for example. Have a *subtle* way of differentiating which pane is active.Įven if you have a seperate tree for each pane, you still need to always have one pane set as the active pane. Personally, I would prefer Option 2's behavior, but the absolute best way would be to give users the choice.ĥ. PowerDesk functions with Option 1's behavior. Respond the same way as Option 1 if it can't find the directory. Option 2 - Set a Home Directory that the second pane will always open up to. If the directory doesn't exist, don't generate an error, but just go to the topmost root of the tree. Option 1 - Remember the last used directory for the second pane and restore that whenever the second pane is brought up. What I would recommend is that you should have a general configuration option for the file manager to behave in one of two ways: Now here, I can see there being some legitimate disagreements. The file manager should remember the last used directory for the second pane. The only advantage of a single tree is that you get the full height to work with - but that does not come close to overcoming all the disadvantages.Ĥ. You're not saving any screen space, because either approach takes the same width on the left side of the screen. There is absolutely no good reason that I can see to have a single tree. Then you have to click a third time to make the bottom pane active, and then a fourth to change *that* directory. But with a shared tree, you click the top pane first to make it active, then you click to change its directory. With seperate trees, you click once to change the directory of the top pane, and once more to click the directory of the bottom pane. To me, this is an absolute must, because - while counterintuitive - having a single shared tree is significantly *less* efficient than having seperate trees for each pane.įirst of all, if you're working with two seperate directory trees, located far apart - you don't want to have to constantly be scrolling between them, as you shift which directories you are loading into each pane.Īlso, as I previously illustrated with XPlorer2, you will - on average - need to make twice as many clicks with a single tree than you would with dual trees. I think it's important to allow each pane to be configured seperately - but people will have different opinions as to whether they want those changes remembered, or if the second pane should always come up configured identically to the first. In PowerDesk, any changes made to the column layout (such as which columns are displayed, sort order, column sizing, etc.) is remembered for the second pane, and restored whenever it's brought up again. There is a seperate but related issue, regarding the column layout in the file portion of the panes. Self explanatory, you should be able to drag the boundry where you need it, and have an easy way to reset it to the default halfway point (such as double-clicking the boundry point). Being able to switch quickly, cleanly, and via keyboard shortcuts is a must. When I'm done, I'll hit Ctrl-1, and I'm back to single pane (with the active pane being the one that remains when switching to single pane mode). When I need dual pane, I hit Ctrl-2, and dual pane pops up. As I mentioned in a prior post, in PowerDesk, I keep it in single pane mode most of the time. We're not looking to lock a file manager into one or the other, but give a quick way to switch to whatever is needed. I'll give you the characteristics that, in my opinion, make for a good Dual Pane implementation (most of which are covered by PowerDesk Pro):ġ. PowerDesk Pro 6.0.4.2 has a simple and clean implementation of it. ![]() It only gets messy when a developer tries to get cute with it (such as with Xplorer2). Well, in general, Dual Pane is relatively simple. And they indeed made me curious: can you show me a good dual pane implementation? Is one existing somewhere, and if yes, for what percentage of all users (would you estimate) is it that good? ![]() However, I want to let you know that I read every word of your longish posts because I saw them well written and thought out. As it might not surprise you, I'm not going into the DP discussion again here and now. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |