Smart Dropdown Buttons: Show captions for each entry?

[Jerry]

I like the new Smart Dropdown Buttons feature in version 11. This works better for me than using locations in the Catalog (because as Don knows, I have a long-running peeve with how and where the Catalog is displayed). But many of my locations are long paths and I would like to just see the basename or other caption displayed for each entry in the menu.

Is there anyway to do that, currently? Since this is just using the basic scripting mechanism, I guess the answer will be no, but I'd love to see it.

Jerry

[admin]

I understand your point. But the power of the Smart Dropdown Buttons is the simplicity. I don't see a way to keep them simple AND allow customizing the caption format.

[Jerry]

I understand your point. But the power of the Smart Dropdown Buttons is the simplicity. I don't see a way to keep them simple AND allow customizing the caption format.

It wouldn't be reasonably simple enough to say, use an optional script label that precedes each entry as the caption? For example,

"Data"
C:\foo\bar\Data
"Images"
C:\bar\foo\Images

[admin]

I think I found a good solution without any configuration work for the user:

Code: Select all

    * Smart Dropdown Buttons: Now the captions are reduced to the item 
      titles, and the full paths are shown in the statusbar on hovering 
      the popup menu items.

[Jerry]

I think I found a good solution without any configuration work for the user:

Code: Select all

    * Smart Dropdown Buttons: Now the captions are reduced to the item 
      titles, and the full paths are shown in the statusbar on hovering 
      the popup menu items.

Yes, that's a preferable approach to just showing the full paths. Thanks for reconsidering and providing the revision, Don.

Of course, there are still cases where having a separate optional caption would be even better, such as when you have paths like the ones below and want the caption to include more than just the final node in the path for disambiguation:
U:\jerry\business\Cust A\invoices
U:\jerry\business\Cust B\invoices
U:\jerry\business\Cust C\invoices

Jerry

[admin]

Yep, that's the price for it. And therefore I added the statusbar feedback.

You can always add full scripts with captions within a smart button if you feel the need:

Code: Select all

U:\
"Cust A\invoices" goto "U:\jerry\business\Cust A\invoices"
"Cust B\invoices" goto "U:\jerry\business\Cust B\invoices"
"Cust C\invoices" goto "U:\jerry\business\Cust C\invoices"
V:\

[Jerry]

You can always add full scripts with captions within a smart button if you feel the need:

Oh, that's fine. I'll do that. Thanks.

[Jerry]

Don,
Thanks for adding caption handling with version 11.00.0004. And it seems you don't even have to quote the target path (it causes a script error if you do). This feature will be great for my ADD friend.

* Smart Dropdown Buttons: Now you may pass a quoted caption in front of the path spec.
This can be useful when the item titles don't distinguish the items, for example:
"XY code www" G:\www\xyplorer.com\code\
"XY code" H:\XYplorer.dev\code\

Another request that would make this button menu even better: Make it possible to drag stuff from the file list onto the button, causing the menu to appear, and then allowing you to drop the dragged items onto a desired target folder. I know about the droppable user buttons but right now they just work with a single target, I believe.

I've started using a dropdown button for own my favorite locations, but if it were possible to drag and drop to items in the menu as well -- that would be seventh heaven. Then I no longer need to use the catalog for this procedure, and my favorite locations can be in just one place.

Jerry

Jerry

[admin]

Drop on menu is not possible technically.

[zer0]

Other than presentation (pane vs toolbar), what is/are actually the differences between Catalog and SDBs? On the face of it, they seem to have considerable overlap in terms of functionality to an extent that one seems redundant.

[Stef123]

considerable overlap in terms of functionality to an extent that one seems redundant.

Nothing wrong with redundancy, especially with optional and/or customizable features. What I miss in many programs is exactly that kind of redundancy, where you can have the very same thing at multiple places and YOU decide, how to turn that functional sameness into positional uniqueness - semantically speaking, in terms of context and circumstances.

[zer0]

Nothing wrong with redundancy, especially with optional and/or customizable features. What I miss in many programs is exactly that kind of redundancy, where you can have the very same thing at multiple places and YOU decide, how to turn that functional sameness into positional uniqueness - semantically speaking, in terms of context and circumstances.

Without wanting to turn this thread into a similar-topic, lengthy one in the "Wishes" section, this kind of redundancy is bad. This is because it removes the responsibility of great design off the developer and effectively says to the users "here, you make sense of it and adapt to and shape it as you wish". Something that is designed and engineered well does not have nor need this "sameness" in multiple areas, because it is done really well in the best place it can be from the beginning. That's not to say that it should stay static, oh no, it can and should continue to improve but without repetition. Having repetition also creates a slippery slope, whereby someone is fully entitled to say "well you have X here, there and over there, so why can't you duplicate Y over here for my convenience and clone Z right here while you're at it". And when a developer comes back saying "no", things do not add up in people's minds. We all think that we want choice, and that choice is the best thing since sliced bread. In reality, if we can only use one of those choices at a time, what matters more is that it is done in the best way possible (what's "best" is debatable, but it's impossible to please everyone and nor should it be attempted) at which point none of the other options matter anyway. Thus, instead of spending precious resources offering choice for the sake of "sameness", they should be poured into making sure that the only way something works is amazing.

[Stef123]

Thanks for clarifying, zer0
Interesting points but not convincing me in the least - guess we just have diametrically opposed views on this.

Something that is designed and engineered well does not have nor need this "sameness" in multiple areas, because it is done really well in the best place it can be from the beginning. That's not to say that it should stay static, oh no, it can and should continue to improve but without repetition.

Saying in essence: Get rid of older search triggers if someone (who?) decides that CAS is better. Get rid of Fav Folders because it only mimicks the Catalog, which clearly is the more versatile and better choice.

Says who? Democratic voting by users (and thus subject to change)? Decision of an expert panel? Don's opinion?

Where do you draw the line for "repetition"? Mini-tree is not that much different from Tabsets, Tags are not totally different from Comments and Labels, but maybe you prefer one over the other, out of habit, or consistency with "less perfect" applications.

what matters more is that it is done in the best way possible (what's "best" is debatable, but it's impossible to please everyone

Eating your cake and mine, and still having both - I don't understand what you're getting at?

[zer0]

Says who? Democratic voting by users (and thus subject to change)? Decision of an expert panel? Don's opinion?

Unfortunately, XYplorer does not collect telemetry on its usage from which metrics can be drawn and interpreted. If something is rarely used and is fulfilled well by another feature, a case can be made that it should be cut. At least there will be hard data behind it rather than posts and polls on a forum.

what matters more is that it is done in the best way possible (what's "best" is debatable, but it's impossible to please everyone

Eating your cake and mine, and still having both - I don't understand what you're getting at?

What I am saying that something that has been designed really well does not need to be mimicked or have significant overlap with other features to the point where it creates redundancy.