Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[<°)))))><]

This might be better as the previously suggested "locking" of individual split views:

How about a little bar above the tree where you can select a target for the tree?
This would only show up if "Show 2 Views" or "Show 3 Views" is selected. It would
contain a drop down menue to select between "Active View", "First View", "Second View"
and (if necessary) "Third View". "Active View" would behave like it's now, the others
would always route the tree selection to the given view.

As an alternative or addition to a drop down menu, there could also be some clickable
icons to change the target and to see what is selected more quickly ...

[<°)))))><]

Comments welcome :-)

[<°)))))><]

To make it more clearer...




[EDIT]

95% of the time I'm using MC I have opened 2 Splits, so there's

Tree  |  A Library Viewscheme  |  Playing Now

Now I'm dragging tracks from the Library Viewscheme to Playing Now
and maybe change the order of some tracks in Playing Now.

Now I go to the Tree and select another Library Viewscheme... I would
expect it to be opened in the left split... BUT OUUPS... it opens in
the right split, Playing Now is not visible any more and 10 Panes are squeezed
into the narrow Split...

OK, move the mouse to the back button on top of the right split and
go back to Playing Now... wondering where is my mind... thinking about
a good GUI should keep blockheads like me away from stuff like that...
thinking a "Target Selector" would be nice...

Soooo... am I the only click without thinking and first activate the
desired split for the 20th time this day blockhead?

Soooo... is it a bad idea?
Any comments?

[bspachman]

I kinda like the thought--but maybe there's a way to accomplish the same effect without taking up x pixels of screen space...some kind of translucency/gray-ing out/highlight ring...? I do like the visual indicators...

brad

EDIT: That way you could take into account how the panes/tabs were arranged (horizontally/vertically)...

[NoBS]

I really like <°)))))>< suggestion
I just spent countless hours trying to figure out why my niece could not get (3) split views to show.
Ended up driving 90 miles just to find (2) of the views was narrowed together.
The sad fact that I paid for my nieces copy adds insult to injury 
A visual reference should have an option to be enabled, yet have this on by default.
Thanks for the perseverance, Mr. Fish 

[ThoBar]

Thanks for the perseverance, Mr. Fish

Looks like a Spanish Mackeral to me 

[<°)))))><]

Thanks for your comments, glad i'm not alone :-)

@ confishy
Just a nameless fish ... not fully dead but smelling funny

@ bspachman
Yes, screen space is always rare, so I first thought about a more simple
approach, like a "lock" on the right of the split headers, where always
should be enough unused space:



But closing and reopening splits may cause logical problems here...
Would the reopened split still be locked? Does it have to be locked again?
Is it also valid for tabs? And it may be irritating or even overlooked that
something is set (locked) "far away" when you are clicking in the tree.
So I thought it would be more obvious to see what's going on when the
icons would be inside the tree, closer to where you click to change stuff...

To take into account the horizontally/vertically arrangement of the
splits is a good point :-)


@ NoBS
Two good points!
- If a split is unvisible because it was narrowed together, changing or
  resetting the number of splits should rearrange the splits to be all visible.
  This should also work with the current menue selection from
  "View > Split View > Show X View(s)"!

- Why not also use the "Target Selector" for setting the splits...

So here is another mock-up... clicking on the icons would also set the number
and arrangement of splits:



1. One split view
2. Two vertical split views
3. Two horizontal split views
4. Three vertical split views
5. Three horizontal split views

In the example, there are three vertical split views set and a selection in
the tree would open stuff in the left split, the centered and right split
would be "locked".

By the way, do you think Tabs also need some locking?

[MrHaugen]

It's some good ideas, and something should definately be done about this.
This is the exact reason why I never ever use split views (but I love them! )

I for one, would like to keep it as simple as possible, with a way of locking each view. I do see the logical problems her though.
However, I do belive that people that uses split view (more advanced users) would understand that nothing will happen if you try to change a locked view.
I think it would suffice to give a notification with a couple of blinks of the selected view or something like that.

[eba]

My idea for solving this, posted in the MC13 Idle Gossip thread:

I know I'm not the only one to have found that tabs and split view are really great, but to have found it really frustrating to have frequently changed the wrong view.  Personally I gave up trying to use tabs altogether because I always forgot they were there and just changed my current one, losing wherever I was.  Now I use a split column view, but still frequently change the wrong view.

People have suggested locking tabs and suchlike, which would certainly help...but wouldn't really hide the fact that having one tree to control multiple views really isn't sufficient.

If I hide the tree, I get this:


This is great, and got me thinking: why couldn't everything in the tree be shown like this?
Quick mockup:


This would give a separate selector for every view, and would save space usually taken up by the tree.

The Action Window etc. would be the only problem...but this could slide out when it was needed.

[llafriel]

How about having the lock option as suggested and when two or more panes are unlocked, clicking in the tree would popup a treeselector beneath the mousepointer. Clicking again confirmes the action and pane target.
It requires two clicks when two panes are unlocked but the target should be obvious.