dpz@paul.UUCP (04/03/87)
He has implemented a feature that Amiga programmers should sit up and
take notice of, namely the ability to iconify the window into a one
line window. This has got to be one of the handiest features that
anyone can put in a program in a desktop-type environment like the
Amiga WorkBench, Sun SunWindows, or Macintosh Finder. The reasons are
obvious, the most prevalent being an easier organization and
management of the desktop environment.
Now, I can draw an argument over the way it was implemented, but that
is a side issue. I doubt most programs would use the right button to
iconify/deiconify anyway :-). Probably a gadget is the most
logical/elegant way to handle it, maybe just to the left of the
"shove-window-to-back" gadget. What to iconify to? Well, not to just
a single line that says the filename being edited (but I can't fault
Matt for this, being the first person to be doing this). Possibly a
two-liner, program name and filename. Or just the program name (maybe
the actual icon picture?). Or the program name, filename, and my name
:-).
Comments?
dpz
--
David P. Zimmerman, Founder of the Society To Make "Hacker" Respectable
Arpa: dpz@rutgers.edu
Uucp: ...{ames,cbosgd,husc6,moss,seismo,ucla-cs,ut-sally}!rutgers!dpzdillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (04/03/87)
>He has implemented a feature that Amiga programmers should sit up and >take notice of, namely the ability to iconify the window into a one >line window. This has got to be one of the handiest features that >... >Now, I can draw an argument over the way it was implemented, but that >is a side issue. I doubt most programs would use the right button to >iconify/deiconify anyway :-). Probably a gadget is the most >logical/elegant way to handle it, maybe just to the left of the >... Yah, this is something that should be in intuition for V1.3 ... add another system gadget (and associated NewWindow flag) for an 'iconify' gadget. It shouldn't be to hard for C-A to integrate an iconify into the window, since all you really have to do is fool around with the cliprects and put them off the screen... sortof like a superbitmap window. The program could then render into the window as if nothing had ever happenned to it! If you added associated IDCMP flags, the program could modify the title (or whatever) of the window to the 'iconify' text and back to normal again. Using the original ICON is *not* going to work. Not only is there no way for the window to know what that ICON was, but there might not be an ICON (CLI or SHELL driven), and in anycase this requires INTUITION to know more about the workbench and the icon library (a definate NO-NO). The particular implementation I chose in DME.. using the right mouse button to iconify the window, obviously only works if you don't intend to have menus in your program. DME doesn't use menu's, so I saw a convenient hole to stick the option in. BTW Sorry about posting DME three times (now at version 1.22). 1.22's new features are now stable enough that I can let it go for a couple of weeks (I hope). Also, there is an undocumented feature in DME 1.22 .... you can do something like DME a.c b.c c.c d.c ... give multiple files, in which case DME opens all the files in separate, smaller than normal windows, and causes iconify to place the iconify windows in different places. -Matt
spencer@eris.UUCP (04/04/87)
In article <8704031013.AA17765@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: >>He has implemented a feature that Amiga programmers should sit up and >>take notice of, namely the ability to iconify the window into a one >>line window. This has got to be one of the handiest features that > Yah, this is something that should be in intuition for V1.3 ... add >another system gadget (and associated NewWindow flag) for an 'iconify' >gadget. > > Using the original ICON is *not* going to work. Not only is there >no way for the window to know what that ICON was... There could be a pointer to an image structure used like gadget select render. When the window is iconified intuition would use that image to render the window. Ofcourse, you could just leave it up to the programmer. Send a message to the program (like close window) that says: "Iconify Window". The the user puts up an image on the screen. Hmmm. That don't sound too easy afterall. They still have to add the "FullScreen Window" message and gadget like the Mac has (boy keeping up with the Jones'). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Randy Spencer P.O. Box 4542 Berkeley CA 94704 (415)284-4740 I N F I N I T Y BBS: (415)283-5469 Now working for |||||||||||::::... . . BUD-LINX But in no way |||||||||||||||::::.. .. . Officially representing ||||||||||||:::::... .. ....ucbvax!mica!spencer s o f t w a r e spencer@mica.berkeley.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (04/04/87)
Adding some kind of icon support to 1.3 would be a win. I'd like to suggest some details. Comments (especially on ease of implementation) are welcome. - Icons are certainly a good idea. The number of times I've reduced my CLI window so I could look underneath, then enlarged it again so I could fit a directory listing in it is enormous. - Icons should work a lot like they do in the workbench. I.e. they're one big drag gadget, and double-clicking opens them. - Extrapolating to windows, double-clicking on the title bar should iconify them. This is of marginal value. An iconify gadget would do just as well. - It should be possible to rearrange them front-to-back. This could be tricky. You want to keep icons small, and not clutter them up with gadgets for this purpose. Perhaps the right mouse button could be used? It does seem a bit underused. (After all, you have to be at the top of the screen to *use* the menus, even if you can push the button anywhere.) How about having one click bring it to the front, two send it to the back? This might be putting too many features on the mouse buttons. Yet, after playing with suntools and X, I really like the versatility the mouse can achieve, even if it does take a while to get used to what all the buttons do depending on where they are. (Note: I think using shift/alt/control/meta/super/hyper/ top/greek - mouse button combinations is a loss. You have to look at the keyboard to find the key to hold.) Anyway, would someone like to improve on these ideas? -- -Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb) Silly quote: Keep your ear peeled!
dpz@paul.RUTGERS.EDU (David P. Zimmerman) (04/16/87)
> From: ccplumb@watnot.UUCP > - Icons should work a lot like they do in the workbench. > I.e. they're one big drag gadget, and double-clicking > opens them. It would also be nice if they (and the workbench icons) acted more like windows, ie, you could put them in foreground and background. Many is the time I have had to move all of my windows to the left to get to the disk icons, instead of just backgrounding the windows. This is a drag (excuse the pun). > - Extrapolating to windows, double-clicking on the title bar > should iconify them. This is of marginal value. An > iconify gadget would do just as well. As far as the current interface goes, the gadget would be more appropriate. > - It should be possible to rearrange them front-to-back. > How about having one click bring it to the front, > two send it to the back? But that would open it, no? How about pressing both buttons to move it to the back? Thus, one click brings it forward, holding the button moves it around, double clicking opens it, and clicking on both buttons simultaneously shoves it to the back. > are. (Note: I think using shift/alt/control/meta/super/hyper/ > top/greek - mouse button combinations is a loss. You have to look > at the keyboard to find the key to hold.) I don't think it is that bad of a loss. Actually, speaking of X, I absolutely love how flexible it is (under uwm), although I agree that the shift/alt family gets on my nerves now and then. Suntools is somewhat flexible, and it would be nice if the Workbench was up to that level of flexibility, but X beats them both. dpz -- David P. Zimmerman rutgers!dpz dpz@rutgers.edu
ccplumb@watmath.UUCP (04/17/87)
dpz@paul.RUTGERS.EDU (David P. Zimmerman) says (in <394@george.paul.RUTGERS.EDU>): >I write: >> - It should be possible to rearrange them front-to-back. > >> How about having one click bring it to the front, >> two send it to the back? > >But that would open it, no? How about pressing both buttons to move >it to the back? Thus, one click brings it forward, holding the button >moves it around, double clicking opens it, and clicking on both >buttons simultaneously shoves it to the back. I made the above comment just after noting how under-utilized the right mouse button is. I thought it was clear I was referring to using the right-hand button. >> are. (Note: I think using shift/alt/control/meta/super/hyper/ >> top/greek - mouse button combinations is a loss. You have to look >> at the keyboard to find the key to hold.) > >I don't think it is that bad of a loss. Actually, speaking of X, I >absolutely love how flexible it is (under uwm), although I agree that >the shift/alt family gets on my nerves now and then. Suntools is >somewhat flexible, and it would be nice if the Workbench was up to >that level of flexibility, but X beats them both. Oh, yes, it's nice, and I don't mind using them for more obscure features, but I think they should be avoided for elementary things. >David P. Zimmerman rutgers!dpz dpz@rutgers.edu -- -Colin Plumb (watmath!ccplumb) Silly quote: Don't count your chickens until the barn door is closed.