Setting to auto-expand file view columns

[mwoffenden]

Would like to have XY automatically expand file view columns (proportionally) to their maximum width.

Is there a setting that allows this to happen?

[SkyFrontier]

Can't say it for sure regarding automatically, mwoffenden.
Don't know if you already know this little trick (probably yes), but you can double click the separator immediately to the right of the column you want to expand (NAME, for instance), thus achieving what you want for each column individually.
Also quoting XYplorer Help file...

Code: Select all

Tip: To set any of these settings to all open tabs at once simply hold SHIFT while making your choices. This trick does not work with the Column layout (positions, widths, visibility), however.

Hope this helps while you can't have complete automation for the process.

[mwoffenden]

Actually I did not explain this well. Maybe the attached image will help.

untitled.JPG

[zer0]

I do not think that this is currently possible. Of what advantage such functionality has over Autosize Columns?

[TheQwerty]

Of what advantage such functionality has over Autosize Columns?

The current function is optimized only to ensure that all data is visible; if after that is achieved the total width of the columns is less than the list's width it doesn't care. Or rather it's main goal is to cram everything to the left without obscuring data.

Extending the algorithm to first left-cram the columns (as it does now) and then do priority expanding of (some) columns to fill any remaining space would be a marked enhancement. It spreads the data out a bit and should improve the overall readability.

When there are only two (or a few) columns it might begin to spread the data out too much, so maybe the algorithm should also take into account the number of visible columns or only expand the columns to a percentage of the list's width when there is too much space remaining.


I fully support making the auto-size function a bit smarter - good suggestion, mwoffenden!

[mwoffenden]

Of what advantage such functionality has over Autosize Columns?

As "TheQwerty" mentioned, it does improve readability as the data has more "white space" between it, rather than being clumped together on the left.

Additionally, the "empty space" on the right would disappear, allowing for a more pleasing appearance.

More details of how it might work:
- This should be controlled by a Config setting, rather than requiring the user to manually re-size any column.
- I think it's as simple as expanding the width of each column (by an equal percentage) until the full window width is reached.
- Resising the XY window should adjust the expansion of the columns to retain the full expansion inside the window.

[zer0]

Of what advantage such functionality has over Autosize Columns?

As "TheQwerty" mentioned, it does improve readability as the data has more "white space" between it, rather than being clumped together on the left.

So this functionality would be like that of a "justified" typographical alignment?

Additionally, the "empty space" on the right would disappear, allowing for a more pleasing appearance.

Currently, you can adjust the right side of your XYplorer window to eliminate this "empty space"...or use DP to increase utilisation. In the future, such space would be attributable to a vertical preview pane ala Vista/Win7.

I think it's as simple as expanding the width of each column (by an equal percentage) until the full window width is reached.

I'm not certain about that. Each column and their arrangement should be considered. Depending on a column, the text is aligned to a particular side, so expanding each cell to just one side would yield mixed results. Likewise, for example, if size and type are next to each other -- like they are in your screenshot -- expanding those column widths does not de-clump that arrangement.

It's an interesting idea on the surface of it, but requires careful scrutiny to make sure it is executed well

[grindax]

.

[mwoffenden]

The thing I dislike about auto-expanding columns is that there's always an element of uncertainty that gets introduced. For example, when you re-size a particular column explicitly, does it mean that that one stays as you've chosen while the others adjust? What happens when you try to re-size other ones and then it screws with the one you've tried to manually set previously. The feeling that there are multiple variables at play, which can't be controlled simultaneously (and which are partially at the whim of the program doing the auto-sizing) is something I don't like. In my opinion it's better to just set the columns to sensible sizes for the type of content they'll display and then have the program remember that, i.e. the way it works already.

I must respectfully disagree. First, I am asking for an option, not a requirement, so any use who likes the way it works, can keep it that way. Second, the Windows world has countless examples of apps that work exactly as I have described -- automatically adjusting widths to fit the window they are inside. In fact, I would suggest that the vast majority do so.

[zer0]

I must respectfully disagree. First, I am asking for an option, not a requirement, so any use who likes the way it works, can keep it that way.

From my experience here so far, I encountered numerous times that when a proposed feature comes under scrutiny, the "make it optional" card comes out, because the proposer feels opposition to his motion. This is not an impression that is intended as we simply want to make sure that the specification of a feature is refined and any potential concerns are addressed.

Second, the Windows world has countless examples of apps that work exactly as I have described -- automatically adjusting widths to fit the window they are inside. In fact, I would suggest that the vast majority do so.

Could you please provide some examples, especially amongst other file managers? I have only come across such functionality in text processing applications.

[admin]

I must respectfully disagree. First, I am asking for an option, not a requirement, so any use who likes the way it works, can keep it that way.

From my experience here so far, I encountered numerous times that when a proposed feature comes under scrutiny, the "make it optional" card comes out, because the proposer feels opposition to his motion. This is not an impression that is intended as we simply want to make sure that the specification of a feature is refined and any potential concerns are addressed.

+1