On Monday 07 January 2013 22:12:11 Charley Bay wrote: > QML is so "visual" and "dynamic", that IMHO there are *much* better ways to > visualize stuff (like files) than through a tree-view. Fundamentally, IMHO > tree-views are so incredibly "wasteful" regarding visual-real-estate. > > I concede "tree-views" may be necessary in some domains, but generally, I > think users hate them, and there are likely better ways to represent > information. I assume the best reason in favor of tree-views is that they > are "familiar", although they seem to impose a "widget-like" historical > perspective that may be incompatible with new UI paradigms.
"Some" as in whenever you care more about the inherent hierarchy of the data
than the data itself - which for example is quite typical for many kinds of
data analysis, where a treeview is actually a very concise and space
preserving way of providing an index into very expansive amounts of data.
So depending on the task at hand a treeview can be the most effective tool
available. If it is available.
I concede that it is not very useful on a mobile phone, since you lack the
screen real estate to display the data that the treeview points to. But not
having it in QML will make me stick with Widgets for the next decade or so.
Anyone working on a mobile (as in tablets) QStyle for Widgets? ;-)
Konrad
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
