[spe.pycs.net] Re: Poll: SDI or MDI for Linux as default?

[Nigel Rowe]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 7 May 2004 23:27, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> I am also for MDI.
>
> MDI apps like Visual Studio, has a box where the files are shown. You
> can maximize your file (and see only one file at a time) or you can
> cascade, tile, etc. the open files and see what you like. The code
> browser, output window, etc can be 'docked' or 'floated' on the sides of
> the main frame.
>

Thats fine on windoze, but on linux (wxGTK2) MDI mode there is no option to 
tile/cascade the open file windows.  There is a single editing area with tabs 
along the top, meaning that only one file is visible at a time.  Its a bit 
like running visual studio with the file window maximised, but with tabs to 
select the active file.

I know MDI is common in the windoze world (with the notable exception of 
internet explorer), but I find it interesting that even microsoft seems to be 
moving away from mdi.  To quote from msdn:-

	Note  MDI is an application-oriented model. Many new and intermediate users
	find it difficult to learn to use MDI applications. Therefore, many
	applications are switching to a document-oriented model. Therefore, you may
	want to consider other models for your user interface. However, you can use
	MDI for applications which do not easily fit into an existing model until a
	more suitable model is introduced. 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/winui/
WinUI/WindowsUserInterface/Windowing/MultipleDocumentInterface.asp
(beware word wrap in that url)

On unix platforms, however SDI has traditionally been more the rule.  Ie 
Motif/CDE or more recently KDE and Gnome

To quote from the relevant guidelines (sorry I don't have cde's to hand).

KDE User interface guidelines

	In MDI the application is represented by the application-window. The
	application-window can contain a number of document-windows. Each opened
	document is represented by a document-window. KDE applications should not
	use this model, but use the SDI model instead. 

GNOME Human Interface Guidelines

	Use SDI for your GNOME application unless there is a compelling reason not
	to.
and
	MDI has several inherent usability problems, so its use is not encouraged in
	new GNOME applications


Not withstanding the above rant, I personally happen to *LIKE*  sdi!

As I said before, I see no problem with MDI being the default, if thats what 
the general consenus is, but please leave SDI available as an option.


<snip rest of Ionutz's proposal>

>
> Ionutz
>


- -- 
	Nigel Rowe
	rho at swiftdsl.com.au


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAm55vBbmcM2pfckkRAiUmAJ4r3dys1kHcrDhjO0WAsvIYbULMcgCg2EzP
jW6LIXgh6WwIeBbNq7mwUhc=
=jGWC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----