Hi, thinking about the windows stack of RISC OS or in general I think there is a way to integrate or use a "thirth dimension" of the desktop.
There are some tools so you can switch between different desktops with different windows. But what about to have the desktops not on side but in the depth? You may found a small bar at the right or left side of the desktop screen. When you open windows you will find them all on one layer - but it may be possible to have more as one layer at one time. Means: You will need another button of the window to move a window a layer back or to the front. With the bar at the left or right side you could switch rapidly between this layers with all in them placed windows.
Not so much time yet why I have to stop. Maybe I will explain it more carefully later.
In message <8aca7ead-2644-4e1e-bd30-9be76ef2f...@k17g2000yqb.googlegro ups.com> Alexander Ausserstorfer <bavariaso...@chiemgau-net.de> wrote:
> Hi, thinking about the windows stack of RISC OS or in general I think > there is a way to integrate or use a "thirth dimension" of the > desktop. > There are some tools so you can switch between different desktops with > different windows. But what about to have the desktops not on side but > in the depth? You may found a small bar at the right or left side of > the desktop screen. When you open windows you will find them all on > one layer - but it may be possible to have more as one layer at one > time. Means: You will need another button of the window to move a > window a layer back or to the front. With the bar at the left or right > side you could switch rapidly between this layers with all in them > placed windows.
So far, this sounds like the effect is exactly the same as switching between different desktops. What would make your approach different?
Martin -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/ ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier spamt...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote: > So far, this sounds like the effect is exactly the same as switching > between different desktops. What would make your approach different?
I can only see a difference in the layout of desktops, in other words:
123456789
rather than
123 456 789
But it seems to me the 2d surface is more expressive than the 1d stack.
It might be made more interesting, though, with extra mouse buttons. For example button 4+close icon means 'put to desktop in front' while button 5+close means 'put to desktop behind'. That's easier to do in a 1d stack than a 2d surface.
On 28 Okt., 12:29, Theo Markettos <theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote: > > So far, this sounds like the effect is exactly the same as switching > > between different desktops. What would make your approach different?
> I can only see a difference in the layout of desktops, in other words:
> 123456789
> rather than
> 123 > 456 > 789
> But it seems to me the 2d surface is more expressive than the 1d stack.
It's more obvious to the user.
> It might be made more interesting, though, with extra mouse buttons. For > example button 4+close icon means 'put to desktop in front' while button > 5+close means 'put to desktop behind'. That's easier to do in a 1d stack > than a 2d surface.
It's much faster to switch between different desktops. (It is the main reason why I never liked the idea with the surfaces.) While as, I didn't write that you can keep different layers on the same desktop at the same time. It will need a while to work everything out to explain the idea more in detail but the main gain is an overkill productivity in comparison to the 2d surface.
In message <69a51750-acbb-4129-9eca-da95a6582...@s31g2000yqs.googlegro ups.com> Alexander Ausserstorfer <bavariaso...@chiemgau-net.de> wrote:
> On 28 Okt., 12:29, Theo Markettos <theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> > wrote: >> Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote: >>> So far, this sounds like the effect is exactly the same as switching >>> between different desktops. What would make your approach different?
>> [...]
>> But it seems to me the 2d surface is more expressive than the 1d stack. > It's more obvious to the user.
How is that? You do not see the other desktops anyway, just the one that is active. It is up to you to imagine whatever you want about the ones that you do not currently see. With all existing solutions you can still imagine they are layers behind your current desktop.
>> It might be made more interesting, though, with extra mouse buttons. For >> example button 4+close icon means 'put to desktop in front' while button >> 5+close means 'put to desktop behind'. That's easier to do in a 1d stack >> than a 2d surface. > It's much faster to switch between different desktops. (It is the main > reason why I never liked the idea with the surfaces.)
It cannot be much faster than pressing a key combination, which is what desktop managers usually offer. Nobody forces you to use both dimensions that are offered by existing multi-desktop managers. If you prefer a one-dimensional layout simply create a single row or a single column of desktops.
Martin -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/ ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier spamt...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
On 29 Okt., 09:59, Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote:
> In message <69a51750-acbb-4129-9eca-da95a6582...@s31g2000yqs.googlegro > ups.com>
[...]
> >> It might be made more interesting, though, with extra mouse buttons. For > >> example button 4+close icon means 'put to desktop in front' while button > >> 5+close means 'put to desktop behind'. That's easier to do in a 1d stack > >> than a 2d surface. > > It's much faster to switch between different desktops. (It is the main > > reason why I never liked the idea with the surfaces.)
> It cannot be much faster than pressing a key combination, which is > what desktop managers usually offer.
Can someone name one (or two) desktop managers for RISC OS which work in this way, please? The only desktop managers I know use a small window, where you can switch between different desktops (four or six?) by a mouse click - but this means you have to
1. make or keep one window open, something what wastes space on the screen 2. and you have to drive a far, far way with the mouse what costs a lot of time
> Nobody forces you to use both > dimensions that are offered by existing multi-desktop managers. If you > prefer a one-dimensional layout simply create a single row or a single > column of desktops.
In article <c9d2370c-3e6c-4edc-84b9-d122a931f...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Alexander Ausserstorfer <bavariaso...@chiemgau-net.de> wrote:
> On 29 Okt., 09:59, Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote: > > In message > > <69a51750-acbb-4129-9eca-da95a6582...@s31g2000yqs.googlegro ups.com>
[Snip]
> Can someone name one (or two) desktop managers for RISC OS which work > in this way, please? The only desktop managers I know use a small > window, where you can switch between different desktops (four or six?) > by a mouse click - but this means you have to > 1. make or keep one window open, something what wastes space on the > screen 2. and you have to drive a far, far way with the mouse what > costs a lot of time
ISTR that one multi-desktop display used to allow a click on its iconbar icon which was divided into nine. Perhaps someone has already made a 1D multi desktop by having a row of tabs at the top of the screen. With the facility of being able to drag a window to the tab relating to the desktop you want that could be quite useful. :-)
> > Nobody forces you to use both dimensions that are offered by existing > > multi-desktop managers. If you prefer a one-dimensional layout simply > > create a single row or a single column of desktops. > Here you are lost.
Lost? How? It's easy enough to quickly visit all the desktops in any manager to see what you may have 'lost'.
In article <c9d2370c-3e6c-4edc-84b9-d122a931f...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Alexander Ausserstorfer <bavariaso...@chiemgau-net.de> wrote:
> On 29 Okt., 09:59, Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote:
[Snip]
> > It cannot be much faster than pressing a key combination, which is > > what desktop managers usually offer. > Can someone name one (or two) desktop managers for RISC OS which work > in this way, please?
[Snip]
Unless I misunderstand you, !MoreDesk from 7th software, does exactly what you are describing. <Tab> + appropriate arrow keys move me around my 6 desktops perfectly well. I happen to use a flat concept of 3x2 desktops but I could have a matrix of 7x1 and then only use the up and down arrows wih <Tab> for the navigation.
In article <50b2f1e2c3brian.jord...@btinternet.com>, Brian Jordan <brian.jord...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Unless I misunderstand you, !MoreDesk from 7th software, does exactly > what you are describing. <Tab> + appropriate arrow keys move me around my > 6 desktops perfectly well. I happen to use a flat concept of 3x2 desktops > but I could have a matrix of 7x1 and then only use the up and down arrows > wih <Tab> for the navigation.
MoreDesk can have up to seven desktops in either vertical or horizontal directions. If you combine the two, you can have up to 49 desktops in a grid arrangement (which is a bit excessive, IMHO!).
There are many ways to move between desktops in MoreDesk:
* alt + cursor key (or ctrl + alt depending upon configuration) * hold alt and move mouse pointer off appropriate edge of screen * open the main window and select a desktop from there (in various ways) * right click iconbar icon and select desktop from the 'micro' window * alt + tab to open a 'switcher' window (as per Windows, Linux, etc) * third party programs can cause MoreDesk to switch desktop
|
