---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Wacknitz A.Wacknitz@gmx.de Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Hi all,
I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing with him and now think that he has some valid points.
His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes and positions I don't want?" I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change
initialExtent methods in every class that is involved.
But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it possible in Pharo? After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when using a fresh image. But that seems stupid now...
His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he lost overview. Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that are common in other IDE's.
Regards Andreas
Indeed, I'm starting to think that tiling window managers are the only actual window managers (as in, if you have to move your windows around, _you're_ the window manager). A colleague pointed out, when I questioned his rabid love of tiling, that I've constructed my workflow in such a way as to turn my non-tiling WM into one, effectively.
Maybe there's a way of easily leveraging Laurent Laffont's new TVM? - http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/05/tiling-window-manager.html
frank
On 31 May 2011 07:22, Michael Haupt mhaupt@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Wacknitz A.Wacknitz@gmx.de Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Hi all,
I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing with him and now think that he has some valid points.
His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes and positions I don't want?" I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change
initialExtent methods in every class that is involved.
But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it possible in Pharo? After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when using a fresh image. But that seems stupid now...
His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he lost overview. Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that are common in other IDE's.
Regards Andreas
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Frank Shearar wrote:
Indeed, I'm starting to think that tiling window managers are the only actual window managers (as in, if you have to move your windows around, _you're_ the window manager). A colleague pointed out, when I questioned his rabid love of tiling, that I've constructed my workflow in such a way as to turn my non-tiling WM into one, effectively.
Maybe there's a way of easily leveraging Laurent Laffont's new TVM? - http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/05/tiling-window-manager.html
It's not a window manager at all, just a button, that tries to lay out windows as equally sized tiles when you press it. While it's a good start, it's far from a real tiling window manager IMHO.
Levente
frank
On 31 May 2011 07:22, Michael Haupt mhaupt@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Wacknitz A.Wacknitz@gmx.de Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Hi all,
I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing with him and now think that he has some valid points.
His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes and positions I don't want?" I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change
initialExtent methods in every class that is involved.
But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it possible in Pharo? After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when using a fresh image. But that seems stupid now...
His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he lost overview. Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that are common in other IDE's.
Regards Andreas
On 31 May 2011 09:29, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Frank Shearar wrote:
Indeed, I'm starting to think that tiling window managers are the only actual window managers (as in, if you have to move your windows around, _you're_ the window manager). A colleague pointed out, when I questioned his rabid love of tiling, that I've constructed my workflow in such a way as to turn my non-tiling WM into one, effectively.
Maybe there's a way of easily leveraging Laurent Laffont's new TVM? - http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/05/tiling-window-manager.html
It's not a window manager at all, just a button, that tries to lay out windows as equally sized tiles when you press it. While it's a good start, it's far from a real tiling window manager IMHO.
Maybe so (I admit I only watched half the demo before Real Life interrupted me), but it's one more ping indicating something potentially worth doing: I'm feeling the lack of a TVM, Andreas W is, Laurent is, ...
Anyway, it's the sort've project that'll take up quite some time. I also certainly don't think we should put a TVM into trunk... but it may be a good idea to put _hooks_ into trunk such that someone can easily load up their own WM, tiling or otherwise.
frank
Levente
frank
On 31 May 2011 07:22, Michael Haupt mhaupt@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Wacknitz A.Wacknitz@gmx.de Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Hi all,
I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing with him and now think that he has some valid points.
His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes and positions I don't want?" I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change
initialExtent methods in every class that is involved.
But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it possible in Pharo? After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when using a fresh image. But that seems stupid now...
His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he lost overview. Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that are common in other IDE's.
Regards Andreas
On 31 May 2011 11:29, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Frank Shearar wrote:
Indeed, I'm starting to think that tiling window managers are the only actual window managers (as in, if you have to move your windows around, _you're_ the window manager). A colleague pointed out, when I questioned his rabid love of tiling, that I've constructed my workflow in such a way as to turn my non-tiling WM into one, effectively.
Maybe there's a way of easily leveraging Laurent Laffont's new TVM? - http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/05/tiling-window-manager.html
It's not a window manager at all, just a button, that tries to lay out windows as equally sized tiles when you press it. While it's a good start, it's far from a real tiling window manager IMHO.
window manager can't prevents windows from clutter. the real solution is to change the workflow to not open that many windows.
IMO in design desicions, we should always be based on a human capabilities: how quickly human can find a concrete window on desktop, when there are 20 of them open? how quickly he can find a needed window using taskbar, if there are 20 labels in takbar?
is there a ways to ogranize workflow to reduce clutter (a more context-oriented workflow), so user can navigate to required point faster?
Because what was looked cool 15 years ago.. today is not so cool.
Levente
frank
On 31 May 2011 07:22, Michael Haupt mhaupt@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Wacknitz A.Wacknitz@gmx.de Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Hi all,
I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing with him and now think that he has some valid points.
His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes and positions I don't want?" I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change
initialExtent methods in every class that is involved.
But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it possible in Pharo? After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when using a fresh image. But that seems stupid now...
His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he lost overview. Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that are common in other IDE's.
Regards Andreas
On 05/31/2011 02:34 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
window manager can't prevents windows from clutter. the real solution is to change the workflow to not open that many windows.
+1. Look around, every program uses tabbed displays; people like them, they work, no need try something new, just do what works.
-- Ramon Leon
On 31 May 2011 16:36, Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com wrote:
On 05/31/2011 02:34 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
window manager can't prevents windows from clutter. the real solution is to change the workflow to not open that many windows.
+1. Look around, every program uses tabbed displays; people like them, they work, no need try something new, just do what works.
Which reminds me - don't we already have something like that? Tabbed browsing, I mean, not the more general issues around Squeak as IDE. I think I'm thinking of Multi-window browsers, in Preferences? Mm, that's _kind've_ like tabbed browsing, only with a popup menu rather than tabs.
frank
Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current setup and the myriad of windows I can open. I like that. I change the colors of windows and titles to help me navigate and find stuff quickly. Tabs would introduce a new constraint of the same level we already have in Squeak - namely the lack of separate system windows (but it's quite easy to work around that one by switching Squeak to full screen mode). Compare the informational value of a window color + window title + window position (old code left top browser, new code right bottom browser etc) with the 5 characters of text you usually get to see on a tab title once you open enough of them. I routinely work with tabbed text editors for non-smalltalk stuff and once you get past 5-10 open tabs, it's rather awful.
I can see how people coming from java or something might prefer tabs, at the same time there much worse GUI problems we should fix first - like the freaking context menus being dragged around after you open it and click if you don't move your mouse to hover around a menu entry (why anyone thought dragging a context menu by anything other than the menu bar might be a good idea is beyond me)
rado
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com wrote:
On 05/31/2011 02:34 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
window manager can't prevents windows from clutter. the real solution is to change the workflow to not open that many windows.
+1. Look around, every program uses tabbed displays; people like them, they work, no need try something new, just do what works.
-- Ramon Leon
On 05/31/2011 09:09 AM, radoslav hodnicak wrote:
Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current setup and the myriad of windows I can open.
I am too, but in spite of all those windows, not because of it. Stockholm syndrome, you've probably just gotten accustomed to it.
quickly. Tabs would introduce a new constraint of the same level we already have in Squeak
Tabs would make it more like practically every other program available that needs multiple edit windows. Tabs are better than multiple windows. Look around, tabs won; the battle is over. Tabbed browsing of the net or 15 instances of Firefox open? Seriously, you think multiple windows are better? Really?
full screen mode). Compare the informational value of a window color + window title + window position (old code left top browser, new code right bottom browser etc)
Meaningless when I have 15 windows open. Position means nothing, color means nothing.
with the 5 characters of text you usually get to see on a tab title once you open enough of them. I routinely work with tabbed text editors for non-smalltalk stuff and once you get past 5-10 open tabs, it's rather awful.
It's vastly better than 15 open windows.
I can see how people coming from java or something might prefer tabs,
I'm a pretty solid Smalltalker, my preference for tabs has nothing to do with coming from Java or not being familiar with Smalltalk.
at the same time there much worse GUI problems we should fix first -
False dichotomy. You don't ignore one problem because you think others also exist. All problems are valid, no need to shift the conversation to other issues, this one is about tabs.
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
I've worked in VisualWorks for years and routinely had 15+ windows open (my taskbar is on the left and on autohide, I can pack a lot of open windows before I lose overview). I've also worked in C/PHP/etc for years and routinely had 15+ tabs open in some IDE. I vastly prefer the first alternative, although that might be colored by the fact that Smalltalk IDEs are more helpful than text-ish ones. I don't know why you call that Stockholm syndrome, it's not like I only work in Smalltalk (I wish!).
Web browsing is different, the tabs there usually aren't related to each other so the comparison to programming IDEs doesn't apply.
rado
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com wrote:
On 05/31/2011 09:09 AM, radoslav hodnicak wrote:
Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current setup and the myriad of windows I can open.
I am too, but in spite of all those windows, not because of it. Stockholm syndrome, you've probably just gotten accustomed to it.
quickly. Tabs would introduce a new constraint of the same level we already have in Squeak
Tabs would make it more like practically every other program available that needs multiple edit windows. Tabs are better than multiple windows. Look around, tabs won; the battle is over. Tabbed browsing of the net or 15 instances of Firefox open? Seriously, you think multiple windows are better? Really?
full screen mode). Compare the informational value of a window color + window title + window position (old code left top browser, new code right bottom browser etc)
Meaningless when I have 15 windows open. Position means nothing, color means nothing.
with the 5 characters of text you usually get to see on a tab title once you open enough of them. I routinely work with tabbed text editors for non-smalltalk stuff and once you get past 5-10 open tabs, it's rather awful.
It's vastly better than 15 open windows.
I can see how people coming from java or something might prefer tabs,
I'm a pretty solid Smalltalker, my preference for tabs has nothing to do with coming from Java or not being familiar with Smalltalk.
at the same time there much worse GUI problems we should fix first -
False dichotomy. You don't ignore one problem because you think others also exist. All problems are valid, no need to shift the conversation to other issues, this one is about tabs.
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
On 05/31/2011 11:47 AM, radoslav hodnicak wrote:
I've worked in VisualWorks for years and routinely had 15+ windows open (my taskbar is on the left and on autohide, I can pack a lot of open windows before I lose overview).
I'd love to see a screenshot of 15+ windows in any useful configuration on a normal sized monitor. I don't think it's possible.
I've also worked in C/PHP/etc for years and routinely had 15+ tabs open in some IDE. I vastly prefer the first alternative, although that might be colored by the fact that Smalltalk IDEs are more helpful than text-ish ones. I don't know why you call that Stockholm syndrome, it's not like I only work in Smalltalk (I wish!).
It was humor. I'm just pointing out that perhaps you should reflect and see if it's just that you're used to it. As I said, I'm very productive in Pharo with bunch of windows open as well, but it's in spite of them, not because of them. I'd much rather have one browser and a bunch of tabs, so I don't have to hunt for workspaces and transcript windows because so many browsers are open.
When I use any other program on windows/linux, I'm never forced to open 15 instances of the same program, this is just another case of Smalltalk ignoring how the rest of the world works. It's being different for no benefit.
Web browsing is different, the tabs there usually aren't related to each otherso the comparison to programming IDEs doesn't apply.
Speak for yourself, mine most certainly are in exactly the same way IDE windows are.
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
On 31. 05. 2011 18:35, Ramon Leon wrote:
Tabs would make it more like practically every other program available that needs multiple edit windows. Tabs are better than multiple windows. Look around, tabs won; the battle is over. Tabbed browsing of the net or 15 instances of Firefox open? Seriously, you think multiple windows are better? Really?
Agreed, tabs won, therefore we need to implement it and this will be a big step forward for usability of our tools. Not only for newcomers, for us too. You will see sooner or later that tabbed windows are better than full ones. I had such experience from VW and other VisualWorkers would probably confirm that.
Ok, a right combo of both, tabbed and full. Say two browsers windows with a reasonable amount of methods open in tabs. And adding back button .. well that would be near nirvana considering current state :)
Best regards Janko
2011/5/31 Janko Mivšek janko.mivsek@eranova.si
On 31. 05. 2011 18:35, Ramon Leon wrote:
Tabs would make it more like practically every other program available that needs multiple edit windows. Tabs are better than multiple windows. Look around, tabs won; the battle is over. Tabbed browsing of the net or 15 instances of Firefox open? Seriously, you think multiple windows are better? Really?
Agreed, tabs won, therefore we need to implement it and this will be a big step forward for usability of our tools. Not only for newcomers, for us too. You will see sooner or later that tabbed windows are better than full ones. I had such experience from VW and other VisualWorkers would probably confirm that.
Ok, a right combo of both, tabbed and full. Say two browsers windows with a reasonable amount of methods open in tabs. And adding back button .. well that would be near nirvana considering current state :)
Take a look at my multi-window browser in Squeak trunk. Its not tabs. Instead its a drop-down menu from the window title area of windows sharing the one main menu. It works well for me and doesn't waste vertical real estate on the tabs themselves. You can also populate them programmatically, look at openCogMultiWindowBrowser in the VMMaker-oscog fork. You need to enable the Multi-Window Browser preference in browsing and open a new browser to enable them.
HTH Eliot
Best regards Janko
-- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
Janko wrote:
Agreed, tabs won, therefore we need to implement it and this will be a big step forward for usability of our tools. Not only for newcomers, for us too. You will see sooner or later that tabbed windows are better than full ones. I had such experience from VW and other VisualWorkers would probably confirm that.
Note that the IRC client in Squeak already has tabbed windows, so the needed code is available (I haven't looked at it and would not be shocked if people prefer to build their own rather than reuse it).
My experience with tiled and tabbed GUIs is mostly with Xilinx and Altera FPGA tools and their Eclipse based processor development kits. Obviously lots of people like this or it would have been designed differently. But I am not a big fan. Not that I am happy with what we have in Squeak now, though I prefer it. My ideal would be a zooming interface instead.
-- Jecel
On 31 May 2011 19:35, Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com wrote:
On 05/31/2011 09:09 AM, radoslav hodnicak wrote:
Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current setup and the myriad of windows I can open.
I am too, but in spite of all those windows, not because of it. Stockholm syndrome, you've probably just gotten accustomed to it.
quickly. Tabs would introduce a new constraint of the same level we already have in Squeak
Tabs would make it more like practically every other program available that needs multiple edit windows. Tabs are better than multiple windows. Look around, tabs won; the battle is over. Tabbed browsing of the net or 15 instances of Firefox open? Seriously, you think multiple windows are better? Really?
full screen mode). Compare the informational value of a window color + window title + window position (old code left top browser, new code right bottom browser etc)
Meaningless when I have 15 windows open. Position means nothing, color means nothing.
+1 at this point i am usually closing everything without even considering what window does what, and start over again :)
For my brain it is more than enough: - always see what i am currently editing (so i never lose focus) - 1 or 2 separate areas for various kinds of lookups , like senders/implementors etc etc
this is enough for being productive i think. So, i imagine a browser (or just 3 separate areas covering whole desktop), where one is an edit space, and 2 is scratch spaces, where everything i do there can be scratched at any moment by new query.
with the 5 characters of text you usually get to see on a tab title once you open enough of them. I routinely work with tabbed text editors for non-smalltalk stuff and once you get past 5-10 open tabs, it's rather awful.
It's vastly better than 15 open windows.
I can see how people coming from java or something might prefer tabs,
I'm a pretty solid Smalltalker, my preference for tabs has nothing to do with coming from Java or not being familiar with Smalltalk.
at the same time there much worse GUI problems we should fix first -
False dichotomy. You don't ignore one problem because you think others also exist. All problems are valid, no need to shift the conversation to other issues, this one is about tabs.
i dunno. many tabs are not anything better than many windows. you will still lose time clicking on them till you will find one you wanted.
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
+1 at this point i am usually closing everything without even considering what window does what, and start over again :)
Ditto.
i dunno. many tabs are not anything better than many windows. you will still lose time clicking on them till you will find one you wanted.
Sure they are, tabs allow you to cycle through windows meaningfully, browser > workspace > transcript > process explorer, without getting stuck flipping through 15+ browsers. Once you've found the program you want, generally speaking, there's a way to cycle through it's tabs quickly to find what you want. Tabs give you context sensitive cycling through open things. Alt + tab through windows, find program, ctrl + tab through open things in that program. Vastly more productive than just having everything open a bunch of windows.
More importantly, that's how the rest of the world already works, Linux/Windows/Mac all support this; Smalltalk, no no... so busy worried about inventing the future it doesn't notice it got left behind.
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
2011/6/1 Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com
More importantly, that's how the rest of the world already works, Linux/Windows/Mac all support this; Smalltalk, no no... so busy worried about inventing the future it doesn't notice it got left behind.
Wow, so that's how the world works. I was just wondering. Thanks. So running with pack is the only and ultimate strategy for success?
Alex
On 1 June 2011 08:28, Alexander Lazarević laza@blobworks.com wrote:
2011/6/1 Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com
More importantly, that's how the rest of the world already works, Linux/Windows/Mac all support this; Smalltalk, no no... so busy worried about inventing the future it doesn't notice it got left behind.
Wow, so that's how the world works. I was just wondering. Thanks. So running with pack is the only and ultimate strategy for success?
Of course not. Note that if you're the only one believing X, and everyone else believes !X, that you might well be wrong. Not always, but you can't be Copernicus or Galileo all the time.
Complacency - specifically, "we're so special that those rules don't apply to us" - means that we get left behind. We have _been_ left behind in many ways, while we hark back to the glory days of 1980. Well, the rest of the world's had 31 years of trying and failing and succeeding. Maybe we should take a good look at what other people have done, and quietly copy what works.
As it happens, I work in "normal" IDEs and Squeak, and I love Squeak _despite_ its lack of window management, not _because_ of it.
frank
On 1 June 2011 01:22, Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com wrote:
+1 at this point i am usually closing everything without even considering what window does what, and start over again :)
Ditto.
i dunno. many tabs are not anything better than many windows. you will still lose time clicking on them till you will find one you wanted.
Sure they are, tabs allow you to cycle through windows meaningfully, browser
workspace > transcript > process explorer, without getting stuck flipping
through 15+ browsers. Once you've found the program you want, generally speaking, there's a way to cycle through it's tabs quickly to find what you want. Tabs give you context sensitive cycling through open things. Alt + tab through windows, find program, ctrl + tab through open things in that program. Vastly more productive than just having everything open a bunch of windows.
More importantly, that's how the rest of the world already works, Linux/Windows/Mac all support this; Smalltalk, no no... so busy worried about inventing the future it doesn't notice it got left behind.
Ramon, i appreciate your worries that squeak/smalltalk left behind. But to change that, we need to do something. Experiment, invent better UI for us. Saying that X is better than Y because rest of the world does Y is not very strong argument. It may be better, but to test that, we need someone to do it and then we can evaluate it. Only then you could state what is better. Because smalltalk IDE is different comparing to other ides. And workflow is different. And this is the reason why smalltalkers are much more productive comparing to other IDEs, even with those crappy windows clutter. In Pharo, you already have tabs - a task list at the bottom. The problem is, that to my experience, it is not really helpful when you have 15+ windows open. That's why i'm not convinced that tabs will increase the productivity.
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
On 06/01/2011 06:58 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Ramon, i appreciate your worries that squeak/smalltalk left behind.
I'm not worried about anything, as I said earlier, I'm productive in spite of the awful UI. It's still an awful UI.
But to change that, we need to do something. Experiment, invent better UI for us. Saying that X is better than Y because rest of the world does Y is not very strong argument.
Actually, it is, when it comes to user interfaces because there are network effects involved and not being different just to be different has huge benefits. We're not talking about Smalltalk here, we're talking about basic UI metaphors like windows and tabs. There's nothing innovative about Squeak/Pharo here visually, it's basic windows, buttons, and scrollbars like every other windowing system out there. It behaves like any OS did a decade ago before tabs were common in most apps. Multiple document interfaces are not new, it's just a common metaphor that Squeak/Pharo ignore to their detriment.
Because smalltalk IDE is different comparing to other ides. And workflow is different. And this is the reason why smalltalkers are much more productive
The browser is different, but combining multiple browsers as is into a single tabbed window doesn't change that; it's still the Smalltalk browser. I didn't suggest changing the browser. Tabs are simply a way to group windows together to reduce clutter. It wouldn't stop anyone from opening multiple browser windows if they wanted to.
In Pharo, you already have tabs - a task list at the bottom.
No. That's a window list, it's nothing like tabs for the reasons I already explained. Tabs allow context sensitive cycling, the context being the window.
The problem is, that to my experience, it is not really helpful when you have 15+ windows open.
Of course not, because it's a window list, not a tab list.
That's why I'm not convinced that tabs will increase the productivity.
Why would a window list convince you that tabs increase productivity?
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
On 1 June 2011 19:06, Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com wrote:
On 06/01/2011 06:58 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Ramon, i appreciate your worries that squeak/smalltalk left behind.
I'm not worried about anything, as I said earlier, I'm productive in spite of the awful UI. It's still an awful UI.
But to change that, we need to do something. Experiment, invent better UI for us. Saying that X is better than Y because rest of the world does Y is not very strong argument.
Actually, it is, when it comes to user interfaces because there are network effects involved and not being different just to be different has huge benefits. We're not talking about Smalltalk here, we're talking about basic UI metaphors like windows and tabs. There's nothing innovative about Squeak/Pharo here visually, it's basic windows, buttons, and scrollbars like every other windowing system out there. It behaves like any OS did a decade ago before tabs were common in most apps. Multiple document interfaces are not new, it's just a common metaphor that Squeak/Pharo ignore to their detriment.
Because smalltalk IDE is different comparing to other ides. And workflow is different. And this is the reason why smalltalkers are much more productive
The browser is different, but combining multiple browsers as is into a single tabbed window doesn't change that; it's still the Smalltalk browser. I didn't suggest changing the browser. Tabs are simply a way to group windows together to reduce clutter. It wouldn't stop anyone from opening multiple browser windows if they wanted to.
In Pharo, you already have tabs - a task list at the bottom.
No. That's a window list, it's nothing like tabs for the reasons I already explained. Tabs allow context sensitive cycling, the context being the window.
The problem is, that to my experience, it is not really helpful when you have 15+ windows open.
Of course not, because it's a window list, not a tab list.
That's why I'm not convinced that tabs will increase the productivity.
Why would a window list convince you that tabs increase productivity?
because as you said, it is same, but for different context.
Could you please sketch a small image with what you want? Where you want to put tabs?
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
On 06/01/2011 10:15 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Could you please sketch a small image with what you want? Where you want to put tabs?
Not really necessary, just look at Google Chrome for example. Each tab is literally a separate process, it's really just multiple browser windows grouped visually. When you cycle the window list via alt + tab, Chrome only shows up once so you can quickly find the app window you're looking for. Easy to alt + tab from Chrome to Email and back again. Once in Chrome, easy to cycle through all the open tabs via ctrl + tab in the context of that window or go directly to the tab you want via ctrl + number.
No reason multiple Smalltalk browsers couldn't be grouped the same way. Then you could have 10 browsers open without feeling cluttered, easily flip over to monticello to save a package, or a workspace to try something out, then back to the browsers without ever resorting to delete unchanged windows out of frustration. Frustration is a common occurrence with the Squeak family UI.
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
Looping at the Idea Space concept of Dolphin Smalltalk may help to clarify the use cases of "tabbed browsers". There was a Flash Movie on www.Object-Arts.Co.uk demonstrating the Concept...
Marco Schmidt
Am 01.06.2011 um 19:07 schrieb Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com:
On 06/01/2011 06:58 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Ramon, i appreciate your worries that squeak/smalltalk left behind.
I'm not worried about anything, as I said earlier, I'm productive in spite of the awful UI. It's still an awful UI.
But to change that, we need to do something. Experiment, invent better UI for us. Saying that X is better than Y because rest of the world does Y is not very strong argument.
Actually, it is, when it comes to user interfaces because there are network effects involved and not being different just to be different has huge benefits. We're not talking about Smalltalk here, we're talking about basic UI metaphors like windows and tabs. There's nothing innovative about Squeak/Pharo here visually, it's basic windows, buttons, and scrollbars like every other windowing system out there. It behaves like any OS did a decade ago before tabs were common in most apps. Multiple document interfaces are not new, it's just a common metaphor that Squeak/Pharo ignore to their detriment.
Because smalltalk IDE is different comparing to other ides. And workflow is different. And this is the reason why smalltalkers are much more productive
The browser is different, but combining multiple browsers as is into a single tabbed window doesn't change that; it's still the Smalltalk browser. I didn't suggest changing the browser. Tabs are simply a way to group windows together to reduce clutter. It wouldn't stop anyone from opening multiple browser windows if they wanted to.
In Pharo, you already have tabs - a task list at the bottom.
No. That's a window list, it's nothing like tabs for the reasons I already explained. Tabs allow context sensitive cycling, the context being the window.
The problem is, that to my experience, it is not really helpful when you have 15+ windows open.
Of course not, because it's a window list, not a tab list.
That's why I'm not convinced that tabs will increase the productivity.
Why would a window list convince you that tabs increase productivity?
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
Hello
2011/6/1 Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com
In Pharo, you already have tabs - a task list at the bottom. The problem is, that to my experience, it is not really helpful when you have 15+ windows open. That's why i'm not convinced that tabs will increase the productivity.
Taskbar needs improvements. And maybe special tabs support will not needed.
My idea is grouping items opened from first tool (browser) opened from world wenu (or pragrammatically). So taskbar will show this groups. When user click on group last used tool from this group will show. And another taskbar row will show all group contents (like usual taskbar). So this extra "tool taskbar" will be like tabs for first activation tool. And this new "tool taskbar" can be shown on top of screen while base taskbar on bottom. Or this tool taskbar can opened in new special row on activated window from target group.
With this behavior developer could never think about implementing tabbed view of application contents. It will just default behavior of windows/taskbar manager.
On 06/01/2011 12:55 PM, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
My idea is grouping items opened from first tool (browser) opened from world wenu (or pragrammatically). So taskbar will show this groups.
That's exactly what Windows 7 does. (I use Ubuntu, just saying)
When user click on group last used tool from this group will show. And another taskbar row will show all group contents (like usual taskbar).
Close to Windows 7, but instead it shows a mini view of all open windows of that type, similar to what Pharo task bar already does but with many windows.
With this behavior developer could never think about implementing tabbed view of application contents. It will just default behavior of windows/taskbar manager.
That might be a pretty good solution... if it's usable via the keyboard.
-- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com
2011/6/2 Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com
Close to Windows 7, but instead it shows a mini view of all open windows of that type, similar to what Pharo task bar already does but with many windows.
Yes. But on Windows and current pharo task bar show windows previews. But I want special extra tool taskbar shown with automatic last used tool activation. And after window activation this tool taskbar should not hide. It should stay like usual row with tabs. And tool taskbar should have many layout policies not related to base taskbar.
Whenever I'm to do something out of the ordinary in Windows it becomes a mess of windows with programs and file browsers. Same on a Mac. Tabs can only do so much when comparing, browsing and editing. Often a open browser showing methods next to what I'm writing is nice.
But tabs would be nice, especially when drilling down implementors chains looking for the right methods for example :-)
Karl
2011/5/31 Stéphane Rollandin lecteur@zogotounga.net
Personally I'm pretty comfortable and productive with the current
setup and the myriad of windows I can open.
+1
Stef
On 2011-05-31 5:34 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
is there a ways to ogranize workflow to reduce clutter (a more context-oriented workflow), so user can navigate to required point faster?
Emacs's separation of (nameless) windows from (named) buffers. This is similar to the "multi-window browsers" setup Frank mentioned, and I guess to tabs as well (especially where tabs can be dragged from window to window).
Emacs does particularly well here because of its rapid keyboard-based way of choosing the buffer to display in a given window, with completion and so forth. Squeak already has most of what's required here, with its pop-up menus: a pop-up could list the named buffers, and the usual type-keys-to-narrow-the-options would work well to rapidly select the item of interest. The pop-up would be available both via keyboard shortcut and via some on-screen widget. You'd also need to build an Emacs-style buffer-management buffer, for quick mass manipulation (e.g. closing) of buffers.
Because what was looked cool 15 years ago.. today is not so cool.
Ironically, in mentioning emacs, I suppose I'm suggesting that what worked well *25* years ago might work well today also :-)
Tony
I think a common misconception is, that (at least) Squeak is just another Smalltalk IDE. As I see it, the goal was (still is?) to be much more than that. With a generic (and easy to use) GUI, without different contexts for eg. writing code or a letter. I think one manifestation of this idea is, that we are able to write down and evaluate some code in (almost) any place where text input is possible. Try to do that in any other mainstream IDE. We don't need to switch to a specific Smalltalk Code View and enter code in some special code evaluation pane where the output goes to a special console window etcetera.
So I would say Squeak's goal wasn't (isn't?) to just make the life of code monkeys easier.
Alex
2011/5/31 Michael Haupt mhaupt@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andreas Wacknitz A.Wacknitz@gmx.de Date: 31 May 2011 08:18 Subject: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Hi all,
I have convinced a friend to take a closer look at Pharo 1.2.1 and Dolphin Smalltalk. He is an experienced Java developer. After some time he started to complain about Pharo. I was discussing with him and now think that he has some valid points.
His biggest complaint is: "Why does Pharo always show windows at sizes and positions I don't want?" I answered him: You could set the standard window size in the class RealEstateAgent and furthermore you can create or change
initialExtent methods in every class that is involved.
But his answer was: Why should I do that? It's the responsibility of an IDE. I don't want to program elementary things of my IDE. Why is there no mechanism that let a user set the sizes and positions of windows? Netbeans and Eclipse are doing that nicely. Why isn't it possible in Pharo? After that discussion I now question my own way of using Pharo and Squeak. I have created some changesets that I used to file in when using a fresh image. But that seems stupid now...
His second complaint was that he doesn't like the cluttered windows. While programming he had a lot of open windows and told me that he lost overview. Especially in Pharo he is complaining about minimized windows that are hard to distinguish. He better likes Dolphin with tabbed windows that are common in other IDE's.
Regards Andreas
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alexander Lazarević -
Denis Kudriashov -
Eliot Miranda -
Frank Shearar -
Igor Stasenko -
Janko Mivšek -
Jecel Assumpcao Jr. -
karl ramberg -
Levente Uzonyi -
Marco Schmidt -
Michael Haupt -
radoslav hodnicak -
Ramon Leon -
Stéphane Rollandin -
Tony Garnock-Jones