On 09/18/2016 08:17 AM, jonetsu@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:02:34 -1000
David Jones <gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But tabs inside a single window completely remove the ability to see
the contents of 2 different tabs entirely. So should that be needed
anywhere - the option is not there at all.
Yes. But, is there a real need to see them at the same time ?
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd rather have the option.
In the Windows world, it's the difference in usability between Excel
and Word. I prefer separate windows, you think it "clutter". I'm glad
Zyn/Yoshimi thinks my way. ;)
You lost me in Windows world. I have no idea, or barely.
I use Mixbus 32C, Renoise, Bitwig, synths, email client and web
browser, all running at the same time.
I use Rosegarden.
All in their respective desktop.
Yup. And everytime you switch from one desktop to another, your eyes and
neural processing have to relocate things. I'm not a fan of that extra
effort. Outside of graphics editing (where I wish modern graphics apps
had the clean NOTHING IN YOUR FACE UI of the old Targa TIPS graphics
program), I prefer to keep everything related to a task (making music is
a task, not a collection of tools to scatter hither and yon).
I am using that principle since 15 years at it works nicely,
at home and at work. At work I may have all consoles connecting to
servers in one desktop, all consoles for local compiling/development
work in another, emacs on its own full screen desktop. I always use the
same keys to switch from one desktop to another. It takes a fraction
of a second. No clutter.
Many windows from a single app on the same desktop when there is no
real need to have them, yes, clutter.
That's where we differ. You basically think there is no need for apps to
have multiple windows. I disagree.
I think that going this way is
just making up for not thinking much about the UI in the first place,
delegating part of the UI design to the user at run time on the account
of flexibility.
Or lazy UI designers who decided that "doing it their way" is the way
EVERYONE must do it. I do blame MS for that, but some of the big open
source products seem to operate the same way.
As far as it see it, not many applications are going that way. Maybe
even, rare ?
Perhaps. I think most doing it because then they DON'T have to think
about the UI. Like all those silly programs that don't use files, yet
have a File menu that has only one option: Quit.
Don't care. I've done UI work, and there's a lot more complexity and
nuance. Mass market for-profit products want to spend as little money as
possible, because any spending directly reduces their profit.
--
David W. Jones
gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
