On 24 Jan 2008, at 7:14 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>> On 24 Jan 2008, at 6:49 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>> On Jan 24, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>>>> Does it make sense to download a linked file when option-
>>>> dragging a
>>>> remote URL to a fileview? And how could this work with the
>>>> datasource principle? And multiple items?
>>> It's not something I'd use personally, but that doesn't necessarily
>>> mean anything. If it's a user request, I'd say the context menu to
>>> download is nicer since it's more discoverable.
>>> If it's something you'd find useful, I think it could be done,
>>> although it's not clear to me what would be added (would the remote
>>> URLs magically turn into files when the download finished?). For
>>> multiple items I think you'd have to show a sheet prompting for a
>>> name for each one.
>> It's not something for me, it's RFE # 1876733. I basically agree with
>> you. Option-drop is the only thing I can think of to make it similar
>> to what it was for the Local-Url field.
> Okay, I just read that RFE. Good grief... I didn't even know we did
> automatic downloads for the Local-Url field. How did it work?
The same way as now (I copied the code from the old version), apart
from the fact that it was triggered when dropping a remote URL on a
local file field rather than the contextual menu item.
> I could see doing a "Replace With Link Target" or something on the
> context menu, where the view runs a download and then calls
> fileView:replaceURLsAtIndexes:withURLs:. I don't see the major
> usability loss that the poster is going on about. It just isn't that
> hard to remove the URL if you don't want it.
My point exactly. I really don't think we should pollute the context
menu any more with an extra item combining a download and a remove.
The only thing I'd consider is a direct download (without adding the
remote URL) perhaps when the Option key is held down.