1. DOS GUI Desktop ? DOCKING!
I think we're trying to be to cliche as to which GUI approuch..
Seriously, name one person that doesnt get annoyed with icons, that overlap,
and windows that you need to resize to be able to see the icon at all.
Microsoft realized this as well and introduced a joke called taskbar, but
windows are still annoying with their overlap, etc. behaviour.
Consider the ICQ-program, it docks itself to the right side of the screen.
What about a DockGUI ?
You can drag a window to any side of the screen and it attaches.
You can still 'resize', but one side is always attached to the desktop.
And windows may NEVER overlap.
Resizing one, resizes another..
But off course you can never have all the functionality of a program on one
screen...
But take menus, you click an option, a new list of options is *docked* to
that option.
Why not dock some of the dialogs to an menu option ?
And for the rest of the 'switching' between programs, any window/dock can
contain child windows/docks.
The only time windows overlap is when a modal window is envoked.
Consider HTML-editors like HomeSite or One-4-all.. they have their open
dialog docked at the left.
Just like the new ACDSee- picture browser does with directories.
Or like IE4 does with the search/history/favorites.
So, what exactly should this Dos-DockGUI work like ?
Two types of windows: child, container, modal
Container: can contain other windows and has a toolbar/taskbar on top. For
every child window a toolbutton is available at the toolbar. Menu options,
etc. can also be added to the toolbar.
Modal: windows dont dock like other windows do. The menu option or
toolbutton that invoked the modal window, will be the one the modal window
is docked to. You can not resize modal windows, nor move around. They dont
have a toolbar.
The containers dont have menus, but menu options can offcourse be added to
the toolbar. And toolbuttons can behave like menu in the way that when you
click on them a new toolbar arrises.
Toolbars consist of (small icon + text), however when the text is of zero
length, its just a toolbutton.
Every container and modal have an optional status bar.
The first entry on the toolbar is always the 'X' that you can use to close
the container window. Next comes the title of the container. Then the
buttons of the icons of the child windows/containers only with text if it
fits.
Think about, MicroSoft is slowly moving this way (ms-word, excel, ie4,
windows explorer) and so are most professional programs. Its not forcing
another GUI method upon the overwhelmed users, it will look familiar and be
consistent yet be usefull and efficient as well, unlike working with real
dragging, maximizable, restorable and resizable windows.. YAK.
Any comments, any one ?
David, can this be coded at all or is it way to complicated ?
Also if some one didnt understand what I meant, please tell me..
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
2. Re: DOS GUI Desktop ? DOCKING!
Ralf wondered about "dockable" windows.
This is a viable alternative to icons. I thing that NEXT and BeOS both
had some sort of alternative similar to docking that was available. The
latest MacOS resembles the BeOS in how it handles minimized windows.
But first, I need to get some more basic stuff up and running.
Thanks for the feedback.
-- David Cuny
3. Re: DOS GUI Desktop ? DOCKING!
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen wrote:
>
> I think we're trying to be to cliche as to which GUI approuch..
> Seriously, name one person that doesnt get annoyed with icons, that overlap,
> and windows that you need to resize to be able to see the icon at all.
>
Ralf:
After going thru all the frustration if getting a Windows program
to run, it's a real letdown to have the same old bland Windows look that
everybody else has.
Maybe we're getting spoiled by some of the nifty graphics on the Web,
or something, but I would really like to see some new ideas and a new
look
for this stuff.
My problem: I'm neither an artist nor a graphic designer - but I will
know
something good when I see it.
Oh, BTW. Why then did I make my Windoz GUI look kinda like Win95?
Because it
is the "no-brainer" of GUI designs. As Dave pointed out "everything's a
button".
That's also one reason I kept the widgets each in their own file: when
someone
with some real talent comes along, he or she can modify the widgets'
appearance
with little trouble.
Regards,
Irv
