XYplorer Beta Club

@zer0: I guess my main points are:
1. easy accessibility and discoverability is good for *all* regular options;
2. the perfect way to get to them, is as yet an unsolved problem.

My first point doesn't chime with your conviction obviously.

By way of background: I still use FeedDemon, but during every beta cycle the developer tries to take out as much existing functionality as he can without his beta forum exploding. I like evidence-based UI in theory* (FD's developer just goes with his convictions, I believe), but so far XYplorer is extended, not reduced.

*: The Building Windows 8-blog is full of evidence, and yet...

OK: this way we won't get to an agreement.

So maybe another possible solution: 2 different settings-dialogs!

One "very basic" with just the options that you think they are "heavy-used". That should be as "simple" as zer0 wishes.
And a "professional" dialog with the ability to work on almost every option. Only "very very hardcore" options would have to be set native by .ini-editing.

O my - Don will be very thankful for this idea

nas8e9 wrote:easy accessibility and discoverability is good for *all* regular options;

i agree with this -i didn't even know about that tweak till Don raised it to UI level. yeah, it's my bad, but there so many tweaks that most users don't know about them

PeterH wrote:So maybe another possible solution: 2 different settings-dialogs!
O my - Don will be very thankful for this idea

surely he will
still that's a good idea. i already thought of maybe to try and use AutoIt to make interface for XY-tweaking specifically, but as tweaks "format" is too different i couldn't imaging its realisation

PeterH wrote:So maybe another possible solution: 2 different settings-dialogs!

One "very basic" with just the options that you think they are "heavy-used". That should be as "simple" as zer0 wishes.
And a "professional" dialog with the ability to work on almost every option. Only "very very hardcore" options would have to be set native by .ini-editing.

I like both aspects of that idea, although I still think the categorisation problem might make a search function useful even for the simple options dialog. I'd prefer if all tweaks were accessible from the advanced options dialog, even if only in their separate section.

PeterH wrote:O my - Don will be very thankful for this idea

If only I were a betting man...

eil wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:easy accessibility and discoverability is good for *all* regular options;

i agree with this -i didn't even know about that tweak till Don raised it to UI level. yeah, it's my bad, but there so many tweaks that most users don't know about them

Just in case there's confusion on this point (and sorry for harping on about this if there isn't): tweaks are basically either experimental, or obscure and not entirely convincing to Don (yet), but user-requested nonetheless. Some tweaks, like the one that spawned this discussion, will eventually be promoted to regular option status, but not all.

Slightly OT, but documentation of tweaks is a bit of a sore point. As Don posted elsewhere, pretty much the sole documentation for them is History.txt.

I formerly restated my suggestion about this configuration editing problem in a topic here: http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 237#p65707

zer0 wrote:To be honest, just how often would people need to edit the .ini? How often do people change settings in the main configuration dialogue? I suggested quite some time ago that Don implements usage statistics, but he has not done so (yet, I hope). If you could know that 90-95% of users do not change a particular setting over the course of months, you could contemplate to keep its value, but relegate it from the GUI. Likewise, if a lot of users enable a setting that is unchecked by default, there is a case for having it on out of the box. And if they change it and keep it that way, it may not need raising the GUI level. It's about making intelligent decisions.

There are many things in both Config and INI settings that I set once and have never since changed but just because it's not often changed shouldn't mean it doesn't belong on the GUI because as with any product, users differ on how they want it configured and having it in GUI makes it easy for a new user to do that...

The only real issue I have with the current INI and tweaks is that many settings that must be set directly are not easy to locate so the FireFox style would have some merit but it would obviously be a large amount of work, I believe, to create that...

Quite a long time ago, I'd asked that every tweak have a single line descriptor associated with it as minimum but even that hasn't always occurred so I'm not sure how successful our requests will be.

j_c_hallgren wrote:... the FireFox style would have some merit but it would obviously be a large amount of work, I believe, to create that...

Actually, j.c., I think this solution would be the easiest to implement and once done, it is scalable and practically self-maintaining. The internal configuration file could be in XML format and the UI component does nothing more than read the contents of the file and render things appropriately.

Of course, I don't know how Don's code is structured and well, it is in Visual Basic, which is unfortunate ;-), but from where I come, this kind of thing would be a very simple enhancement.

And I think it quite adequately addresses, even if not to everyone's ideals, most of the concerns we have raised here. I'm almost willing to help Don do it, quite honestly.

http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 237#p65707

eil wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:easy accessibility and discoverability is good for *all* regular options;

i agree with this -i didn't even know about that tweak till Don raised it to UI level. yeah, it's my bad, but there so many tweaks that most users don't know about them

But do most users need to know about them? Will they change their habit-driven behaviour to make use of those tweaks? The answer is a firm 'no', because tweaks are most often introduced to cater for one or a handful of people's needs. I do very little in-line renaming -- it is usually script-driven -- and usually move files through drag-and-drop. There is no way I am changing how I do renaming/moving simply because there is a tweak allows me to do both differently.

j_c_hallgren wrote:There are many things in both Config and INI settings that I set once and have never since changed but just because it's not often changed shouldn't mean it doesn't belong on the GUI because as with any product, users differ on how they want it configured and having it in GUI makes it easy for a new user to do that...

If a setting is rarely changed, it makes for a strong argument that it should not be in the GUI. The only reason for the GUI is for ease of change using a simple tick/select. If the need for such a change is rare, would it be so much of an inconvenience to edit the INI once in a few weeks/months? What if Don makes it so XYplorer won't need restarting to re-read those settings and will pick them up on-the-fly?

zer0 wrote:But do most users need to know about them? Will they change their habit-driven behaviour to make use of those tweaks? The answer is a firm 'no', because tweaks are most often introduced to cater for one or a handful of people's needs. I do very little in-line renaming -- it is usually script-driven -- and usually move files through drag-and-drop. There is no way I am changing how I do renaming/moving simply because there is a tweak allows me to do both differently.

where does such "firmly no" come from?! users should at least know what abilities they are granted =so then they can chose if to use them or not my habit-driven behaviour changed greatly since i started to use XY i "can't live" anymore without double-click to go back. since i use Mouse Down Blow Up i started to use only right-mouse drag, which i never used for 7 years!. i set this settings and don't change them, but that's because i easily found them = if those were in .ini(like tweaks, or like any "not often changed setting" you're proposing) i would most probably never found them

zer0 wrote:If a setting is rarely changed, it makes for a strong argument that it should not be in the GUI. The only reason for the GUI is for ease of change using a simple tick/select.

UI level grants not only ease of change but access to it for new/casual users, who have problems even with an ordinary settings(not saying they never look to .ini). yet, manual editing is always about possible mistakes, which will lead in least situation to not working feature.

eil wrote:where does such "firmly no" come from?! users should at least know what abilities they are granted =so then they can chose if to use them or not my habit-driven behaviour changed greatly since i started to use XY i "can't live" anymore without double-click to go back. since i use Mouse Down Blow Up i started to use only right-mouse drag, which i never used for 7 years!. i set this settings and don't change them, but that's because i easily found them = if those were in .ini(like tweaks, or like any "not often changed setting" you're proposing) i would most probably never found them

I don't deny that there are useful tweaks. But none have made me change my behaviour. So it's not necessarily the question of them being in the GUI, but you not being aware of their existence and purpose. If there were to be "Tweak of the Day" feature, I'd bet you would be more informed.

eil wrote:UI level grants not only ease of change but access to it for new/casual users, who have problems even with an ordinary settings(not saying they never look to .ini). yet, manual editing is always about possible mistakes, which will lead in least situation to not working feature.

Sorry, but XYplorer is not for casual users. For such people, bog-standard Explorer will do. Besides, if they have problems even with ordinary settings, migrating tweaks to GUI level will only exacerbate the problem, no?

@zer0: I may have misunderstood, but I don't think it has been requested to expose tweaks in the regular configuration window. What has been suggested, assuming options are taken out of the Configuration dialog to streamline it, is to have those (formerly regular) options as well as the tweaks, available in a separate, more advanced (Firefox about:config-like) dialog.

The reason for exposing tweaks as well in the advanced window, is to do with keeping users from having to edit XYplorer.ini directly, which tends to generate support requests from less experienced users, as well as added convenience. I agree that XYplorer users are far more likely to have the ability to edit .ini files, but experience shows that isn't universally the case (which presumably/hopefully indicates sales to a wider user base, which is good).

I remain unconvinced that the current regular options need to be pruned to solve a GUI problem and would rather have the Configuration dialog improved, without including tweaks in the Configuration dialog: Don keeps them out for a reason. Only when the above scenario of a pruned Configuration dialog with alternative advanced dialog would be implemented (and the lack of posts by Don suggests this is a fairly moot discussion), would including tweaks in the advanced dialog, make sense to me.

Edited for spelling.

nas8e9 wrote:@zer0: I may have misunderstood, but I don't think is has been requested to expose tweaks in the regular configuration window. What has been suggested, assuming options are taken out of the Configuration dialog to streamline it, is to have those (formerly regular) options as well as the tweaks available in a separate, more advanced (Firefox about:config-like) dialog.

If it something that will reduce the burden on the Configuration dialogue while making it easier and safer to modify tweaks, I am all for it.

zer0 wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:@zer0: I may have misunderstood, but I don't think is has been requested to expose tweaks in the regular configuration window. What has been suggested, assuming options are taken out of the Configuration dialog to streamline it, is to have those (formerly regular) options as well as the tweaks available in a separate, more advanced (Firefox about:config-like) dialog.

If it something that will reduce the burden on the Configuration dialogue while making it easier and safer to modify tweaks, I am all for it.

That's right, the solution I proposed, http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 237#p65707, would not only prevent further clutter of the existing configuration dialogs but would also allow the existing dialogs to be trimmed of less-important options, while still providing quick access to the set of advanced options and tweaks pertinent to each functional section.

zer0 wrote:I don't deny that there are useful tweaks. But none have made me change my behaviour. So it's not necessarily the question of them being in the GUI, but you not being aware of their existence and purpose. If there were to be "Tweak of the Day" feature, I'd bet you would be more informed.

This sounds a bit strange to me!
Is it so that your behavior matches all XY-tweaks, or that all XY-tweaks match your behavior?

But OK: if all people would be so "on default", XY would need no tweak at all.

To me it always seemed as if tweaks would be used to adapt XY to my behavior, isn't it so?

PeterH wrote:

zer0 wrote:I don't deny that there are useful tweaks. But none have made me change my behaviour. So it's not necessarily the question of them being in the GUI, but you not being aware of their existence and purpose. If there were to be "Tweak of the Day" feature, I'd bet you would be more informed.

This sounds a bit strange to me!
Is it so that your behavior matches all XY-tweaks, or that all XY-tweaks match your behavior?

But OK: if all people would be so "on default", XY would need no tweak at all.

To me it always seemed as if tweaks would be used to adapt XY to my behavior, isn't it so?

Tweaks seem to have muddled this discussion somewhat. I think I've seen them come up in two ways:
1. Pruning of the current configuration window (which only lists regular options, not tweaks) and thus demoting options so that they can only be edited in the same way as tweaks, but without altering their status as regular, supported, options. (To me, this feels contradictory, but that would be zer0's proposal.)
2. *If* the first point were implemented, to provide an alternative way to .ini-editing to get at the demoted options and then *possibly* including the tweaks in that alternative editing possibility as well.

As for the purpose of tweaks, my understanding is that they are either experimental, or user-requested but obscure and/or unconvincing to Don. I wouldn't expect tweaks to change in nature and I'm partial to several as well.