Re: [Lmuse-developer] UI design.

[<ge...@la...>]

Can't see any negatives to MDI as proposed and POC'd by Flo. Check it out everyone....let's move forwards in this one. Great editing mode ;) 

g

----- Reply message -----
From: "Tim E. Real" <ter...@ro...>
To: <lmu...@li...>
Subject: [Lmuse-developer] UI design.
Date: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 8:20 am


On July 29, 2011 08:10:21 am Florian Jung wrote:
> Tim, as i'm starting to write a POC for my MDI interface, i'd like to
> come to a final decision about the "type" of MDI: "delphi/borland-style"
> or "normal MDI style".

Yesterday I repaired a Mac (we get them sometimes).
I don't use Mac, but this time because you had mentioned it, I paid 
 attention to the menu. I am now reminded/refreshed of how it works.
Interesting. Eschewing window menus in favour of a central menu.
I see what you mean now.

Anyway, my personal vote is against a full MDI main window.
If we go this route, I'd say do something like Mac/Delphi/Gimp style.
Give the windows the freedom to exist anywhere (except on top of the menu).
A full main MDI window is just wasting more space that you gain by removing
 menus and toolbars from the other windows.
IMO there's no reason to use full MDI when these other methods achieve the
 same results but better. That's why I avoid full MDI main windows these days
 except when necessary.

Also you mentioned LADSPA plugin windows being obscured etc.
Yes, that's a concern of mine. I have many of them open at once.
We need all the desktop space we can spare.

I would need heavy convincing. 
I /can/ be persuaded, but it (full MDI) would have to be real good....

Tim.

>
> i'd prefer the normal MDI style, because it's more suited for muse than
> the borland-style, which is better for IDEs and stuff like that.
> the borland-style makes it easy to have everything in view and
> alternatively allows to focus on ONE certain window, hiding everything
> else (including most menu bars, toolbars etc.). the necessary menus
> still are at the single windows, which is a good compromise between
> accessibility and space at IDEs
> the normal MDI style makes it easy to have everything in view as well,
> but when maximizing one certain window, you still have the global
> toolbars and menus. this is indeed bad for IDEs, because oyu don't need
> your component library while writing code, but good for Muse, because
> you DO need the function menu and the toolbars when editing a pianoroll.
>
> again: i prefer the normal MDI style: it's been proven that it works
> (Cakewalk), while i'm not aware of any "borland-style" sequencer. and it
> simply fits better to applications where you usually always need all
> controls.
>
>
> this is an urgent topic, because from a second glance, these concepts
> will be implemented pretty differently in QT.
>
> (btw, i found out that the transition to MDI isn't quite as easy as i
> thought, as all former QMainWindows must become QMdiSubWindows. simply
> changing isn't a great problem, but offering both SDI and MDI is a bit
> tricky. i assume we'll have to create some kind of runtime-wrappers...
> we'll see)
>
> greetings
> flo
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
_______________________________________________
Lmuse-developer mailing list
Lmu...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmuse-developer