On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Charley Bay <charleyb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mark sayeth: >> >> <snip>, KDE has a "little" (pun intended) thingy called >> >> "KIO". It's a very massive IO framework that has support for a lot of >> different filesystems. It's all working under Qt and is right now in >> the progress of being ported to a Qt only library (as in no other >> dependencies needed to run other then KIO + Qt). Lately i've been >> doing a lot of experimenting with KIO + QML. <snip>, > > >> One big thing that you will also encounter when using QML + filesystem >> related stuff is the complete lack of trees! Right now there is no way >> to display a treeview in QML. And i don't mean through proxy stuff. >> Just using QML + imports. I am experimenting in that area as well to >> get a treeview working properly but that's kinda tricky. Qt should >> really try to improve a bit here and offer some default components >> that can display a tree like structure. > > > On the "tree-view" ... after MUCH thinking (and experimentation), I'm pretty > close to concluding, "We don't need tree-views". > > At first I *wanted* them, but after much experimentation where a > "(List-)Model" may be a "property" of a higher-level thing (like an > item-within-a-model), I've decided that I don't need them (yet). Further, > the specific domain of experimentation happens to be for > "file-system-type-things". > > As an example, here's a link to discussion about a number of > "file-system-viewer-things" (visualizing hard drive usage in this example), > where IMHO the "best-ones" don't use a "tree-view": > > <http://superuser.com/questions/8248/how-can-i-visualize-the-file-system-usage-on-windows> > > 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. > > --charley >
Certainly a interesting point of view! I both agree and disagree with it. Agree: in terms of creating completely new gui's with the power of QML. Using that you can certainly come up with very interesting alternatives. Disagree: in todays desktop world a treeview - or lets put it differently, representing data in a tree - is not something you can "just" discard. Another reason is that having a tree like gui element is a lot more convenient than making the same using a bunch of listviews. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
