Some tear-off browser menus would be nice

Discussion in 'Apple' started by dorayme, Apr 2, 2012.

  1. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    Looking at some style-switching menu in Firefox this morning I was
    thinking, wouldn't it be nice if we could tear off the bit of the menu
    that we wanted from browsers.

    For those unfamiliar with this concept, some image manipulation
    software has this: for example, Photoshop. You can drag off some of
    the tools, with their optional variations to a convenient spot for
    drawing and stuff, saving having to charge off to somewhere at the far
    side or top.

    The View menu comes to mind as a useful candidate for this, with its
    different zoom settings, page display options.

    For all I know, it may even be possible, either built in or addable
    with some sort of extension or extra.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 2, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dorayme wrote:
    > Looking at some style-switching menu in Firefox this morning I was
    > thinking, wouldn't it be nice if we could tear off the bit of the menu
    > that we wanted from browsers.
    >
    > For those unfamiliar with this concept, some image manipulation
    > software has this: for example, Photoshop. You can drag off some of
    > the tools, with their optional variations to a convenient spot for
    > drawing and stuff, saving having to charge off to somewhere at the far
    > side or top.
    >
    > The View menu comes to mind as a useful candidate for this, with its
    > different zoom settings, page display options.
    >
    > For all I know, it may even be possible, either built in or addable
    > with some sort of extension or extra.
    >


    Well with Firefox you could probably create an extension to do it. I am
    assuming that you mean putting the menu in a separate toolbox-window...
    the only problem I see now is that browsers have tabs so it would be
    difficultly linking the tab in focus with the satellite-menu window. I
    think setting custom hot-keys for personal commonly used settings would
    work out better.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 2, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > dorayme wrote:
    >> Looking at some style-switching menu in Firefox this morning I was
    >> thinking, wouldn't it be nice if we could tear off the bit of the menu
    >> that we wanted from browsers.
    >>
    >> For those unfamiliar with this concept, some image manipulation
    >> software has this: for example, Photoshop. You can drag off some of
    >> the tools, with their optional variations to a convenient spot for
    >> drawing and stuff, saving having to charge off to somewhere at the far
    >> side or top.
    >>
    >> The View menu comes to mind as a useful candidate for this, with its
    >> different zoom settings, page display options.
    >>
    >> For all I know, it may even be possible, either built in or addable
    >> with some sort of extension or extra.
    >>

    >
    > Well with Firefox you could probably create an extension to do it. I am
    > assuming that you mean putting the menu in a separate toolbox-window...
    > the only problem I see now is that browsers have tabs so it would be
    > difficultly linking the tab in focus with the satellite-menu window. I
    > think setting custom hot-keys for personal commonly used settings would
    > work out better.
    >



    Oh I forgot, Macs rip the application menu off the application window
    and stick it up in the desktop's top panel. A real PITA when you have a
    non-maximized window in the lower-right corner of a large wide-screen
    monitor. Something that I have been complaining about with Ubuntu's
    adoption of this bone-head feature in Unity!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 2, 2012
    #3
  4. dorayme

    Paul Sture Guest

    On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:05:08 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Oh I forgot, Macs rip the application menu off the application window
    > and stick it up in the desktop's top panel. A real PITA when you have a
    > non-maximized window in the lower-right corner of a large wide-screen
    > monitor. Something that I have been complaining about with Ubuntu's
    > adoption of this bone-head feature in Unity!


    Good luck with Unity :)

    Apparently the latest trend is towards maximized apps. Presumably
    everyone is going to throw away the nice large screens that they have
    acquired over the last few years and move to tablets <snigger>

    <http://bit.ly/Hfamnh>

    "GNOME 3.4 arrives, introducing significant design changes

    GNOME designer Allan Day wrote a blog post in February describing the new
    application style. Windows are maximized by default, emphasizing full-
    screen layouts. Application functionality is separated into multiple
    views that the user navigates between. Toolbars are pared down
    considerably and are intended to be used mainly for navigation and the
    traditional menubar is being phased out.

    Several of the applications in GNOME 3.4 conform with that new style, but
    there are still many applications that haven't been overhauled yet. The
    applications that are designed in the new style are automatically
    displayed in a maximized state when they launch. They can still easily be
    snapped back into a normal floating state by dragging down from the top
    bar."

    --
    Paul Sture
     
    Paul Sture, Apr 2, 2012
    #4
  5. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jlcbmb$8hs$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > > dorayme wrote:
    > >> Looking at some style-switching menu in Firefox this morning I was
    > >> thinking, wouldn't it be nice if we could tear off the bit of the menu
    > >> that we wanted from browsers.
    > >>
    > >> For those unfamiliar with this concept, some image manipulation
    > >> software has this: for example, Photoshop. You can drag off some of
    > >> the tools, with their optional variations to a convenient spot for
    > >> drawing and stuff, saving having to charge off to somewhere at the far
    > >> side or top.
    > >>
    > >> The View menu comes to mind as a useful candidate for this, with its
    > >> different zoom settings, page display options.
    > >>
    > >> For all I know, it may even be possible, either built in or addable
    > >> with some sort of extension or extra.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Well with Firefox you could probably create an extension to do it. I am
    > > assuming that you mean putting the menu in a separate toolbox-window...



    It is actually Illustrator that I have experience with tearing off
    tools, not Photoshop. Seems I just assumed you could in latter but
    this seems not to be so. In Illustrator, I have the tools in a tall
    skinny, mainly two col table. This table floats and can be moved
    about. That is one thing and good. The more detailed thing I was
    thinking about though was the way you can drag, for instance, just the
    pen tool off to float on its lonesome, (its variations then get
    displayed in a tiny horizontal strip that can be moved to be wherever
    you want on the desktop. Very handy!

    > > the only problem I see now is that browsers have tabs so it would be
    > > difficultly linking the tab in focus with the satellite-menu window. I
    > > think setting custom hot-keys for personal commonly used settings would
    > > work out better.
    > >

    >


    Well, I can't see that as a theoretical problem, maybe a practical
    coding developer prob. Let's take a specific case, OK? You tear off
    the Page Style menu and it displays, like Illustrator pen, all under
    it. It would have No Style and a line under this and then a list of
    author styles that you could switch between.

    If you focussed on another tab, the little floating menu could
    disappear permanently or temporarily till you reengaged the tab it was
    working on. Or, better, but harder to develop I imagine, it changes to
    apply to the new tab. All sorts of smart possibilities.

    >
    > Oh I forgot, Macs rip the application menu off the application window
    > and stick it up in the desktop's top panel. A real PITA when you have a
    > non-maximized window in the lower-right corner of a large wide-screen
    > monitor. Something that I have been complaining about with Ubuntu's
    > adoption of this bone-head feature in Unity!


    You can look at this another way. Macs don't *rip* the application
    menu off the application window. Rather Windows kidnaps the menu and
    forces it into slavery.

    There are swings and roundabouts in all of this. On a Mac you can drag
    Illustrator tools and options to *anywhere* on the *desktop*. On Win
    Illustrator, maybe tools have to be confined to the Application
    window? For graphic work I find two screens useful, the "app area",
    where the real product is fashioned can be on one screen and the tools
    and options on another. Perhaps you can do this with Windows without
    needing to spread the canvas window over two screens, I have an older
    Illustrator on a winbox somewhere, I should look before I throw it
    out.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 2, 2012
    #5
  6. dorayme wrote:
    > In article<jlcbmb$8hs$>,
    > "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:


    >>> Well with Firefox you could probably create an extension to do it. I am
    >>> assuming that you mean putting the menu in a separate toolbox-window...

    >
    >
    > It is actually Illustrator that I have experience with tearing off
    > tools, not Photoshop. Seems I just assumed you could in latter but
    > this seems not to be so. In Illustrator, I have the tools in a tall
    > skinny, mainly two col table. This table floats and can be moved
    > about. That is one thing and good. The more detailed thing I was
    > thinking about though was the way you can drag, for instance, just the
    > pen tool off to float on its lonesome, (its variations then get
    > displayed in a tiny horizontal strip that can be moved to be wherever
    > you want on the desktop. Very handy!


    I have the feature in CorelDraw, it is called tear off dockers. They can
    either be docked or "torn-off" to maximize layout workspace.

    <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/tearoffdockers.jpg>

    What I like it the *option* unlike GIMP where everything is a satellite
    window. Been available for a decade in Corel, plus it has had a context
    adjusting toolbars that change with the operation to help maximize
    workspace.

    >
    >>> the only problem I see now is that browsers have tabs so it would be
    >>> difficultly linking the tab in focus with the satellite-menu window. I
    >>> think setting custom hot-keys for personal commonly used settings would
    >>> work out better.
    >>>

    >>

    >
    > Well, I can't see that as a theoretical problem, maybe a practical
    > coding developer prob. Let's take a specific case, OK? You tear off
    > the Page Style menu and it displays, like Illustrator pen, all under
    > it. It would have No Style and a line under this and then a list of
    > author styles that you could switch between.
    >
    > If you focussed on another tab, the little floating menu could
    > disappear permanently or temporarily till you reengaged the tab it was
    > working on. Or, better, but harder to develop I imagine, it changes to
    > apply to the new tab. All sorts of smart possibilities.
    >


    It could be done, but it was just an issue to be addressed. The problem
    with web browsers and windows and tabs is the need to keep cross
    communication strictly controlled. You do *not* want a tab with your
    bank account "talking" to that other one with the website hijacked by
    underworld hackers...

    >>
    >> Oh I forgot, Macs rip the application menu off the application window
    >> and stick it up in the desktop's top panel. A real PITA when you have a
    >> non-maximized window in the lower-right corner of a large wide-screen
    >> monitor. Something that I have been complaining about with Ubuntu's
    >> adoption of this bone-head feature in Unity!

    >
    > You can look at this another way. Macs don't *rip* the application
    > menu off the application window. Rather Windows kidnaps the menu and
    > forces it into slavery.


    Okay, here is my complaint in a nutshell. The Mac uni-menu is efficient
    if your screen real-estate is limited and if you tend to only have one
    or two applications open at a time. My screenshot shows that is rarely
    how I work. I often have several things open at once because my work
    requires multiple references. Like in the old days when you did research
    papers for school with many open books, note cards and a notebook open
    across a large table.

    I have two monitors, so if the app-menu is *always* in the far left-hand
    corner regardless of the window's location the association is a bit
    obscure. I guess I could get use to it, but it also means to switch
    access from one window to another requires you must *first* click the
    desired window first to put it in focus to switch the uni-menu. If it is
    in the right monitor in the corner, well that means sweep over then
    click go all the way over to the left monitor to the upper-left to make
    the choice. Now to the next window in the right monitor click it to
    switch the uni-menu again and then back again to the left....RIIIIIGHT!

    Whereas now I click *directly* on the window's menu wherever it happens
    to be, to the next maybe just above it with *one* click. No playing Pong
    with my mouse!

    Now for an iPhone or iPad, iToy, or whatever jabbing your finger here
    and there and everywhere is no big deal, but not with my computing
    requirements. It is the one-size-fits-all UI that I object to...


    >
    > There are swings and roundabouts in all of this. On a Mac you can drag
    > Illustrator tools and options to *anywhere* on the *desktop*. On Win
    > Illustrator, maybe tools have to be confined to the Application
    > window?


    Probably the same. Haven't used Illustrator in years. As I said before I
    use Corel where this feature has been available for some time.

    > For graphic work I find two screens useful, the "app area",
    > where the real product is fashioned can be on one screen and the tools
    > and options on another. Perhaps you can do this with Windows without
    > needing to spread the canvas window over two screens, I have an older
    > Illustrator on a winbox somewhere, I should look before I throw it
    > out.
    >


    Again it depends on the app.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 2, 2012
    #6
  7. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jlcu61$thn$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article<jlcbmb$8hs$>,
    > > "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Well with Firefox you could probably create an extension to do it. I am
    > >>> assuming that you mean putting the menu in a separate toolbox-window...

    > >
    > >
    > > It is actually Illustrator that I have experience with tearing off
    > > tools, not Photoshop. Seems I just assumed you could in latter but
    > > this seems not to be so. In Illustrator, I have the tools in a tall
    > > skinny, mainly two col table. This table floats and can be moved
    > > about. That is one thing and good. The more detailed thing I was
    > > thinking about though was the way you can drag, for instance, just the
    > > pen tool off to float on its lonesome, (its variations then get
    > > displayed in a tiny horizontal strip that can be moved to be wherever
    > > you want on the desktop. Very handy!

    >
    > I have the feature in CorelDraw, it is called tear off dockers. They can
    > either be docked or "torn-off" to maximize layout workspace.
    >
    > <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/tearoffdockers.jpg>


    I see the floating options/tools windows but can't quite see the other
    more detailed thing I was referring to, floating off a particular tool
    (or closely related set of tools). In Mac Illus.

    <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/floatingTools.png>

    See the pen tool ripped off from the already floating tool menu.

    ....

    > >...Let's take a specific case, OK? You tear off
    > > the Page Style menu and it displays, like Illustrator pen, all under
    > > it. It would have No Style and a line under this and then a list of
    > > author styles that you could switch between.
    > >
    > > If you focussed on another tab, the little floating menu could
    > > disappear permanently or temporarily till you reengaged the tab it was
    > > working on. Or, better, but harder to develop I imagine, it changes to
    > > apply to the new tab. All sorts of smart possibilities.
    > >

    >
    > It could be done, but it was just an issue to be addressed. The problem
    > with web browsers and windows and tabs is the need to keep cross
    > communication strictly controlled. You do *not* want a tab with your
    > bank account "talking" to that other one with the website hijacked by
    > underworld hackers...
    >


    Well, fine, but I can't see why it would be so hard to have the
    simplest implementation: the floating facility but it quits completely
    if another tab is focussed on. That would do if it can't be made to
    safely logically attach itself to a particular tab and lose focus or
    lose visibility and refocus when the tab comes back.


    > >>
    > >> Oh I forgot, Macs rip the application menu off the application window
    > >> and stick it up in the desktop's top panel. A real PITA when you have a
    > >> non-maximized window in the lower-right corner of a large wide-screen
    > >> monitor. Something that I have been complaining about with Ubuntu's
    > >> adoption of this bone-head feature in Unity!

    > >
    > > You can look at this another way. Macs don't *rip* the application
    > > menu off the application window. Rather Windows kidnaps the menu and
    > > forces it into slavery.

    >
    > Okay, here is my complaint in a nutshell.



    It's OK, I understand your complaint. There have been calls by others
    in Mac groups to be able to duplicate the menu on whatever screen is
    wanted, fair enough. I think there are actually facilities you can add
    to do this.

    I am used to having the main menu on the screen directly in front of
    me, the other one or two screens are never central (I don't sit
    *between* screens, I did that once and worried too much about getting
    sucked through the crack). The sorts of things I do on the non-mains,
    I have this clever way of turning my eyes (or neck if I am feeling
    athletic) to see what is what on them and the mouse happily goes
    wherever at a nudge. And there is always keyboard commands to help
    out.

    > The Mac uni-menu is efficient
    > if your screen real-estate is limited and if you tend to only have one
    > or two applications open at a time. My screenshot shows that is rarely
    > how I work. I often have several things open at once because my work
    > requires multiple references. Like in the old days when you did research
    > papers for school with many open books, note cards and a notebook open
    > across a large table.
    >
    > I have two monitors, so if the app-menu is *always* in the far left-hand
    > corner regardless of the window's location the association is a bit
    > obscure. I guess I could get use to it, but it also means to switch
    > access from one window to another requires you must *first* click the
    > desired window first to put it in focus to switch the uni-menu. If it is
    > in the right monitor in the corner, well that means sweep over then
    > click go all the way over to the left monitor to the upper-left to make
    > the choice. Now to the next window in the right monitor click it to
    > switch the uni-menu again and then back again to the left....RIIIIIGHT!
    >
    > Whereas now I click *directly* on the window's menu wherever it happens
    > to be, to the next maybe just above it with *one* click. No playing Pong
    > with my mouse!
    >


    Jonathan, I know are you are getting close to succumbing to the
    temptations of the delicious Macs, these your final gasps of protest
    before surrender. <g>

    About many apps open, many of us have to do this. but the number of
    visible app windows gets to have a limit for those of us needing more
    than tiny screen fonts, or who get confused easily. I use the dock
    (minimization) a lot and other facilities to clear the apps
    temporarily. I use the tab key to clear some programs of all floating
    tools. We all work differently and, as I said, there are swings and
    roundabouts.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 2, 2012
    #7
  8. dorayme wrote:
    > In article<jlcu61$thn$>,
    > "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:


    <snip>

    >> I have the feature in CorelDraw, it is called tear off dockers. They can
    >> either be docked or "torn-off" to maximize layout workspace.
    >>
    >> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/tearoffdockers.jpg>

    >
    > I see the floating options/tools windows but can't quite see the other
    > more detailed thing I was referring to, floating off a particular tool
    > (or closely related set of tools). In Mac Illus.
    >
    > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/floatingTools.png>
    >
    > See the pen tool ripped off from the already floating tool menu.
    >


    Can do the same, including toolbox and menus

    <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/floating.jpg>

    >
    >>> ...Let's take a specific case, OK? You tear off
    >>> the Page Style menu and it displays, like Illustrator pen, all under
    >>> it. It would have No Style and a line under this and then a list of
    >>> author styles that you could switch between.
    >>>
    >>> If you focussed on another tab, the little floating menu could
    >>> disappear permanently or temporarily till you reengaged the tab it was
    >>> working on. Or, better, but harder to develop I imagine, it changes to
    >>> apply to the new tab. All sorts of smart possibilities.
    >>>

    >>
    >> It could be done, but it was just an issue to be addressed. The problem
    >> with web browsers and windows and tabs is the need to keep cross
    >> communication strictly controlled. You do *not* want a tab with your
    >> bank account "talking" to that other one with the website hijacked by
    >> underworld hackers...
    >>

    >
    > Well, fine, but I can't see why it would be so hard to have the
    > simplest implementation: the floating facility but it quits completely
    > if another tab is focussed on. That would do if it can't be made to
    > safely logically attach itself to a particular tab and lose focus or
    > lose visibility and refocus when the tab comes back.


    It would depend on how the "windows" are generated and linked.

    [tab or window with URL1] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with menu1]

    but you wouldn't want

    [tab or window with URL2] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with menu1]

    or

    [tab or window with URL1] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with URL2]

    With your graphics app messaging among all its associated windows is not
    a security risk, but for a web browser it is not the case. It may not be
    so simple without rewriting the browser app.


    >>>>
    >>>> Oh I forgot, Macs rip the application menu off the application window
    >>>> and stick it up in the desktop's top panel. A real PITA when you have a
    >>>> non-maximized window in the lower-right corner of a large wide-screen
    >>>> monitor. Something that I have been complaining about with Ubuntu's
    >>>> adoption of this bone-head feature in Unity!
    >>>
    >>> You can look at this another way. Macs don't *rip* the application
    >>> menu off the application window. Rather Windows kidnaps the menu and
    >>> forces it into slavery.

    >>
    >> Okay, here is my complaint in a nutshell.

    >
    >
    > It's OK, I understand your complaint. There have been calls by others
    > in Mac groups to be able to duplicate the menu on whatever screen is
    > wanted, fair enough. I think there are actually facilities you can add
    > to do this.


    Yeah in Ubuntu it's call Cinnamon.

    >
    > I am used to having the main menu on the screen directly in front of
    > me, the other one or two screens are never central (I don't sit
    > *between* screens, I did that once and worried too much about getting
    > sucked through the crack). The sorts of things I do on the non-mains,
    > I have this clever way of turning my eyes (or neck if I am feeling
    > athletic) to see what is what on them and the mouse happily goes
    > wherever at a nudge. And there is always keyboard commands to help
    > out.


    True, but there was a *design* reason for redundancy of keyboard and
    pointer commands. If you hand is on the mouse, it is less convenient to
    switch to the keyboard to finish the action, and the converse is also
    true. That is "search" is not a total substitute for a start menu imo


    >
    >> The Mac uni-menu is efficient
    >> if your screen real-estate is limited and if you tend to only have one
    >> or two applications open at a time. My screenshot shows that is rarely
    >> how I work. I often have several things open at once because my work
    >> requires multiple references. Like in the old days when you did research
    >> papers for school with many open books, note cards and a notebook open
    >> across a large table.
    >>
    >> I have two monitors, so if the app-menu is *always* in the far left-hand
    >> corner regardless of the window's location the association is a bit
    >> obscure. I guess I could get use to it, but it also means to switch
    >> access from one window to another requires you must *first* click the
    >> desired window first to put it in focus to switch the uni-menu. If it is
    >> in the right monitor in the corner, well that means sweep over then
    >> click go all the way over to the left monitor to the upper-left to make
    >> the choice. Now to the next window in the right monitor click it to
    >> switch the uni-menu again and then back again to the left....RIIIIIGHT!
    >>
    >> Whereas now I click *directly* on the window's menu wherever it happens
    >> to be, to the next maybe just above it with *one* click. No playing Pong
    >> with my mouse!
    >>

    >
    > Jonathan, I know are you are getting close to succumbing to the
    > temptations of the delicious Macs, these your final gasps of protest
    > before surrender.<g>


    Now that is funny!

    >
    > About many apps open, many of us have to do this. but the number of
    > visible app windows gets to have a limit for those of us needing more
    > than tiny screen fonts, or who get confused easily. I use the dock
    > (minimization) a lot and other facilities to clear the apps
    > temporarily. I use the tab key to clear some programs of all floating
    > tools. We all work differently and, as I said, there are swings and
    > roundabouts.
    >


    Well when I am putting together newsletter and pamphlets and such I am
    pulling from several sources, from emails, word docs, images, then my
    layout in CorelDraw so a have a few open with some folders...even when
    doing websites I have a code window, resource windows and browsers
    going... I am just used to visually composing with all laid out. I
    haven't gotten used to the Win7 taskbar yet. I am more at home with
    Linux multiple desktops.


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 3, 2012
    #8
  9. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jldfmm$6fd$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article<jlcu61$thn$>,
    > > "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > >> I have the feature in CorelDraw, it is called tear off dockers. They can
    > >> either be docked or "torn-off" to maximize layout workspace.
    > >>
    > >> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/tearoffdockers.jpg>

    > >
    > > I see the floating options/tools windows but can't quite see the other
    > > more detailed thing I was referring to, floating off a particular tool
    > > (or closely related set of tools). In Mac Illus.
    > >
    > > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/floatingTools.png>
    > >
    > > See the pen tool ripped off from the already floating tool menu.
    > >

    >
    > Can do the same, including toolbox and menus
    >
    > <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/floating.jpg>
    >

    That does not look to me quite the same? I don't mean exactly the
    same, OK. I mean some equivalent level of detail. Let me put it this
    way: can you tear off the pen tool set like illustrated in my url
    above?

    With the browser case, it is a level of detail that would be very
    useful; for example, tearing off the zoom set from the menu, tearing
    off Page Style from the FF menu.

    > >
    > >>> ...Let's take a specific case, OK? You tear off
    > >>> the Page Style menu and it displays, like Illustrator pen, all under
    > >>> it. It would have No Style and a line under this and then a list of
    > >>> author styles that you could switch between.
    > >>>
    > >>> If you focussed on another tab, the little floating menu could
    > >>> disappear permanently or temporarily till you reengaged the tab it was
    > >>> working on. Or, better, but harder to develop I imagine, it changes to
    > >>> apply to the new tab. All sorts of smart possibilities.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> It could be done, but it was just an issue to be addressed. The problem
    > >> with web browsers and windows and tabs is the need to keep cross
    > >> communication strictly controlled. You do *not* want a tab with your
    > >> bank account "talking" to that other one with the website hijacked by
    > >> underworld hackers...
    > >>

    > >
    > > Well, fine, but I can't see why it would be so hard to have the
    > > simplest implementation: the floating facility but it quits completely
    > > if another tab is focussed on. That would do if it can't be made to
    > > safely logically attach itself to a particular tab and lose focus or
    > > lose visibility and refocus when the tab comes back.

    >
    > It would depend on how the "windows" are generated and linked.
    >
    > [tab or window with URL1] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with menu1]
    >
    > but you wouldn't want
    >
    > [tab or window with URL2] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with menu1]
    >
    > or
    >
    > [tab or window with URL1] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with URL2]
    >
    > With your graphics app messaging among all its associated windows is not
    > a security risk, but for a web browser it is not the case. It may not be
    > so simple without rewriting the browser app.
    >
    >


    Well, maybe it would be hard, I just don't know. But I wonder if
    anyone has thought to do this? Perhaps not many see a use for it? All
    I can say is that it would be a nice enhancement

    ....

    > >
    > > About many apps open, many of us have to do this. but the number of
    > > visible app windows gets to have a limit for those of us needing more
    > > than tiny screen fonts, or who get confused easily. I use the dock
    > > (minimization) a lot and other facilities to clear the apps
    > > temporarily. I use the tab key to clear some programs of all floating
    > > tools. We all work differently and, as I said, there are swings and
    > > roundabouts.
    > >

    >
    > Well when I am putting together newsletter and pamphlets and such I am
    > pulling from several sources, from emails, word docs, images, then my
    > layout in CorelDraw so a have a few open with some folders...even when
    > doing websites I have a code window, resource windows and browsers
    > going... I am just used to visually composing with all laid out. I
    > haven't gotten used to the Win7 taskbar yet. I am more at home with
    > Linux multiple desktops.


    Fair enough. There are pluses and minuses to open app windows having
    their own menus. Me, I like that space is not wasted on them, the
    relevant menu (and dropdowns) appearing at top of desktop when an app
    is active, (click on the browser window, or click on the Image
    software window). on Macs, btw, one can Command Tab through apps, they
    come up as a strip of big icons, you stop on the one you want to do
    something on, let go and you are on and the icons disappear. There are
    other facilities to help too.

    Jonathan, trust me, watching a skilled Mac user operate is like
    watching a concert pianist perform, a beautiful sight to behold. I am
    trying to organise a performance of this in some big theatre, Carnegie
    Hall maybe, I will shout you a ticket if it ever happens. It's OK, I
    know, you can't wait!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 3, 2012
    #9
  10. dorayme wrote:
    > In article<jldfmm$6fd$>,
    > "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> In article<jlcu61$thn$>,
    >>> "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:

    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>> I have the feature in CorelDraw, it is called tear off dockers. They can
    >>>> either be docked or "torn-off" to maximize layout workspace.
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/tearoffdockers.jpg>
    >>>
    >>> I see the floating options/tools windows but can't quite see the other
    >>> more detailed thing I was referring to, floating off a particular tool
    >>> (or closely related set of tools). In Mac Illus.
    >>>
    >>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/floatingTools.png>
    >>>
    >>> See the pen tool ripped off from the already floating tool menu.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Can do the same, including toolbox and menus
    >>
    >> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/floating.jpg>
    >>

    > That does not look to me quite the same? I don't mean exactly the
    > same, OK. I mean some equivalent level of detail. Let me put it this
    > way: can you tear off the pen tool set like illustrated in my url
    > above?


    Like this?

    <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/curveflyout.jpg>

    Yes I can. Now each application has different naming convention and
    arrangement. BTW I can customize everything and can "theme" my Corel
    workspace to be like Illustrator if I wished. I have my own custom
    toolbars with automation VBA function that I developed to assist my
    workflow.


    >
    > With the browser case, it is a level of detail that would be very
    > useful; for example, tearing off the zoom set from the menu, tearing
    > off Page Style from the FF menu.


    I guess I am just used to CTRL+Scollwheel or CTRL +/- and I have the Web
    Developers Bar for the style changer but other that debugging posts
    here. The only time I need to change/disable the style is if the page am
    on is a styling train wreck and I would really need the info for I would
    just typically bail on it.

    <snip>

    >> With your graphics app messaging among all its associated windows is not
    >> a security risk, but for a web browser it is not the case. It may not be
    >> so simple without rewriting the browser app.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Well, maybe it would be hard, I just don't know. But I wonder if
    > anyone has thought to do this? Perhaps not many see a use for it? All
    > I can say is that it would be a nice enhancement
    >


    I remember in the early days of tabs the security issue of
    cross-communication that allow XSS issues that had to be patched. It may
    have be considered, but frankly I don't see the the enhancement value.

    <snip>

    >> Well when I am putting together newsletter and pamphlets and such I am
    >> pulling from several sources, from emails, word docs, images, then my
    >> layout in CorelDraw so a have a few open with some folders...even when
    >> doing websites I have a code window, resource windows and browsers
    >> going... I am just used to visually composing with all laid out. I
    >> haven't gotten used to the Win7 taskbar yet. I am more at home with
    >> Linux multiple desktops.

    >
    > Fair enough. There are pluses and minuses to open app windows having
    > their own menus. Me, I like that space is not wasted on them, the
    > relevant menu (and dropdowns) appearing at top of desktop when an app
    > is active, (click on the browser window, or click on the Image
    > software window). on Macs, btw, one can Command Tab through apps, they
    > come up as a strip of big icons, you stop on the one you want to do
    > something on, let go and you are on and the icons disappear. There are
    > other facilities to help too.


    Same with Windows and Linux. When I am doing more than one thing that
    process works well. Actually for that scenario Linux's multiple desktops
    works best for me...I really used the compiz cube! MS's implementation
    of multiple desktops just sucks. But when I am doing one then that the
    creative composing process pulls from multiple sources flipping through
    windows is not as efficient as seeing them all at once. Just the way I
    work. As soon and I can swing it I will probably get a third monitor.

    >
    > Jonathan, trust me, watching a skilled Mac user operate is like
    > watching a concert pianist perform, a beautiful sight to behold. I am
    > trying to organise a performance of this in some big theatre, Carnegie
    > Hall maybe, I will shout you a ticket if it ever happens. It's OK, I
    > know, you can't wait!
    >


    Again it depends on what you are doing, and what you are doing it with.
    My fear is, and this is OS-independent because they are all trending
    this way, that the quest for the single universal UI is folly. What
    works for a phone may not for a desktop. Touch is the new sexy thing,
    but I have no need for a touch for my work, but all the new UI are
    leaning towards touch at the *expense* of mouse and keyboard. I just
    want choice and control of how I work.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 3, 2012
    #10
  11. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jlev0s$r6l$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:


    > >>> ... In Mac Illus.
    > >>>
    > >>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/floatingTools.png>
    > >>>
    > >>> See the pen tool ripped off from the already floating tool menu.
    > >>>
    > >>

    ....
    >
    > Like this?
    >
    > <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/curveflyout.jpg>
    >


    Yes, I think that is it! I assume you can grab that specific "Curve
    Flyout" and drag it around to anywhere you are working.

    ....

    > >
    > > With the browser case, it is a level of detail that would be very
    > > useful; for example, tearing off the zoom set from the menu, tearing
    > > off Page Style from the FF menu.

    >
    > I guess I am just used to CTRL+Scollwheel or CTRL +/- and I have the Web
    > Developers Bar for the style changer but other that debugging posts
    > here. The only time I need to change/disable the style is if the page am
    > on is a styling train wreck and I would really need the info for I would
    > just typically bail on it.
    >


    OK, I was just illustrating the concept with the zoom bit, I mostly do
    as you do in fact. But even with the zoom bits of the menu, I am
    increasingly switching from zoom text only to zoom, partly for my own
    comfort and uses of website pages, and partly because I want to see
    how various things that I am doing in website production function
    under the two different modes. Now this is not so easily switched
    without going to the View menu and boring through the dropdown. Yes, I
    could make workarounds I guess. But I am just saying... be nice if it
    was built in to tear off.

    Another example: FF and some other browsers provide the ability to
    flip through styles for the same doc, but every time you want to look
    at a different "alternate" style, you have to charge off to the
    dropdown again. Be nice if it was just handy, all open and inviting,
    ready to please.

    ....
    >
    > ... the
    > creative composing process pulls from multiple sources flipping through
    > windows is not as efficient as seeing them all at once. Just the way I
    > work. As soon and I can swing it I will probably get a third monitor.
    >


    I understand. It is one of the main reasons I have gotten used to
    multiple screens though for a while now, I have had to be more
    disciplined because my laptop does not support anything but its tiny
    miserable self as second screen and it is less than useful as a
    result. I am hoping to remedy this a purchase of a machine that will
    support two independent big screens (like my old now not much used
    non-Intel Mac tower that sits under a desk nearby). But one thing, I
    had three screens once, but found it promoted indiscipline and neck
    problems.

    ....

    > My fear is, and this is OS-independent because they are all trending
    > this way, that the quest for the single universal UI is folly. What
    > works for a phone may not for a desktop. Touch is the new sexy thing,
    > but I have no need for a touch for my work, but all the new UI are
    > leaning towards touch at the *expense* of mouse and keyboard. I just
    > want choice and control of how I work.


    Me too! And in the trendy Mac world, the danger may be greater.

    Talking gadgets, btw, I am thinking of a book reader. I want one that
    I can put PDFs that I have or can get, as well as downloading from
    commercial and *public* libraries. I don't get straight answers from
    salesmen in shops about their capabilities and restrictions so need to
    research it. A friend bought a Kindle, loves it, but was surprised at
    how expensive so many books cost to put on it. That worried me, she is
    no cheapskate like me!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 3, 2012
    #11
  12. dorayme wrote:
    > In article<jlev0s$r6l$>,
    > "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:

    >
    >>>>> ... In Mac Illus.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/floatingTools.png>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> See the pen tool ripped off from the already floating tool menu.
    >>>>>
    >>>>

    > ...
    >>
    >> Like this?
    >>
    >> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/curveflyout.jpg>
    >>

    >
    > Yes, I think that is it! I assume you can grab that specific "Curve
    > Flyout" and drag it around to anywhere you are working.
    >


    Yes

    <snip>

    > ...
    >>
    >> ... the
    >> creative composing process pulls from multiple sources flipping through
    >> windows is not as efficient as seeing them all at once. Just the way I
    >> work. As soon and I can swing it I will probably get a third monitor.
    >>

    >
    > I understand. It is one of the main reasons I have gotten used to
    > multiple screens though for a while now, I have had to be more
    > disciplined because my laptop does not support anything but its tiny
    > miserable self as second screen and it is less than useful as a
    > result. I am hoping to remedy this a purchase of a machine that will
    > support two independent big screens (like my old now not much used
    > non-Intel Mac tower that sits under a desk nearby). But one thing, I
    > had three screens once, but found it promoted indiscipline and neck
    > problems.
    >
    > ...
    >
    >> My fear is, and this is OS-independent because they are all trending
    >> this way, that the quest for the single universal UI is folly. What
    >> works for a phone may not for a desktop. Touch is the new sexy thing,
    >> but I have no need for a touch for my work, but all the new UI are
    >> leaning towards touch at the *expense* of mouse and keyboard. I just
    >> want choice and control of how I work.

    >
    > Me too! And in the trendy Mac world, the danger may be greater.


    It is not confined to Mac, although I do blame Jobs and his disdain for
    button and labels and sold the multitude on style-over-function that MS
    and Linux feel compelled to follow...Unity, Metro, ugh!

    >
    > Talking gadgets, btw, I am thinking of a book reader. I want one that
    > I can put PDFs that I have or can get, as well as downloading from
    > commercial and *public* libraries. I don't get straight answers from
    > salesmen in shops about their capabilities and restrictions so need to
    > research it. A friend bought a Kindle, loves it, but was surprised at
    > how expensive so many books cost to put on it. That worried me, she is
    > no cheapskate like me!
    >


    PDFs don't work well on the readers because they are like
    pixels-perfect-websites where they don't re-flow, especially where aging
    eyes need to increase the font size... If you can get it in another
    format like ePub or HTML it is better.

    I got my wife Kindle, the B&W e-ink type. Very, very easy to read. Now
    this if for text because of the nice contrast and it does no glow like a
    Fire or iPad. If you want multimedia, then they are the ones to get but
    for *reading* the e-ink is better.

    First thing is there are tons of free books out there, especially if you
    look beyond the latest best-seller publications. Places the like
    <http://www.gutenberg.org/>. A must browse site.

    Next, Kindle to date does not support the ubiquitous ePub format. The
    *must-have* software is Calibre <http://calibre-ebook.com/> It runs on
    Win|Mac|Linux and is a great library management and format conversion
    tool. I don't get books via my Kindle, but use Calibre and then sync the
    Kindle. I give it 5 stars. I can find all kinds of ePub books and I just
    convert to mobi for the Kindle.


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 3, 2012
    #12
  13. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jlfius$fn6$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:


    > >
    > > Talking gadgets, btw, I am thinking of a book reader. I want one that
    > > I can put PDFs that I have or can get, as well as downloading from
    > > commercial and *public* libraries. I don't get straight answers from
    > > salesmen in shops about their capabilities and restrictions so need to
    > > research it. A friend bought a Kindle, loves it, but was surprised at
    > > how expensive so many books cost to put on it. That worried me, she is
    > > no cheapskate like me!
    > >

    >
    > PDFs don't work well on the readers because they are like
    > pixels-perfect-websites where they don't re-flow, especially where aging
    > eyes need to increase the font size... If you can get it in another
    > format like ePub or HTML it is better.
    >
    > I got my wife Kindle, the B&W e-ink type. Very, very easy to read. Now
    > this if for text because of the nice contrast and it does no glow like a
    > Fire or iPad. If you want multimedia, then they are the ones to get but
    > for *reading* the e-ink is better.
    >
    > First thing is there are tons of free books out there, especially if you
    > look beyond the latest best-seller publications. Places the like
    > <http://www.gutenberg.org/>. A must browse site.
    >
    > Next, Kindle to date does not support the ubiquitous ePub format. The
    > *must-have* software is Calibre <http://calibre-ebook.com/> It runs on
    > Win|Mac|Linux and is a great library management and format conversion
    > tool. I don't get books via my Kindle, but use Calibre and then sync the
    > Kindle. I give it 5 stars. I can find all kinds of ePub books and I just
    > convert to mobi for the Kindle.


    Thanks very much for this, downloaded already, and passed on links to
    friend with Kindle, and will very probably go and get a Kindle for
    myself. Yes, I have already worked out that it is the B&W e-ink type
    that I want.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 3, 2012
    #13
  14. dorayme wrote:
    > Thanks very much for this, downloaded already, and passed on links to
    > friend with Kindle, and will very probably go and get a Kindle for
    > myself. Yes, I have already worked out that it is the B&W e-ink type
    > that I want.



    Yes I have been happy with the Kindle. I want to get the Touch, but the
    store was all out so I got the cheapy with the page buttons. It fine as
    long as you don't have to enter much in...it's like texting. My only
    wish is that I wish it was a little bit larger, but not as large as an
    iPad. More like 1 inch. What I do is rotate the text 90 degrees.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 3, 2012
    #14
  15. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jlfv6j$i4c$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > Thanks very much for this, downloaded already, and passed on links to
    > > friend with Kindle, and will very probably go and get a Kindle for
    > > myself. Yes, I have already worked out that it is the B&W e-ink type
    > > that I want.

    >
    >
    > Yes I have been happy with the Kindle. I want to get the Touch, but the
    > store was all out so I got the cheapy with the page buttons. It fine as
    > long as you don't have to enter much in...it's like texting. My only
    > wish is that I wish it was a little bit larger, but not as large as an
    > iPad. More like 1 inch. What I do is rotate the text 90 degrees.



    Yes, last time I saw one I was thinking a tad bigger would be nice.
    But I rate highly light and easy to carry. For me, it will be a mere
    reader, I have enough computing on my desk already, the idea is for a
    quite different life outside.

    Yes, iPad seems to me too large, but really and above this (though
    they, of course, tend to go together*) too heavy to add as an extra
    when on the move. It is nice, of course.

    -----
    * In this world they do. But not necessarily, there might be a world
    in which some bigger is lighter just as there might be a world where
    offspring are born bigger than their parents. <g>

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 4, 2012
    #15
  16. dorayme wrote:
    > Yes, last time I saw one I was thinking a tad bigger would be nice.
    > But I rate highly light and easy to carry. For me, it will be a mere
    > reader, I have enough computing on my desk already, the idea is for a
    > quite different life outside.


    I got a nice leather cover so it is like a small thin book. If you turn
    off WiFi (I use Calibre via USB to load it) the battery lasts a long
    long time, in the order of a month...

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 4, 2012
    #16
  17. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jlgcmo$kn8$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > Yes, last time I saw one I was thinking a tad bigger would be nice.
    > > But I rate highly light and easy to carry. For me, it will be a mere
    > > reader, I have enough computing on my desk already, the idea is for a
    > > quite different life outside.

    >
    > I got a nice leather cover so it is like a small thin book. If you turn
    > off WiFi (I use Calibre via USB to load it) the battery lasts a long
    > long time, in the order of a month...


    That's a good tip! When I get mine, I will have a running start,
    thanks to you.

    Have been looking at where to get, seem cheaper direct from Amazon
    rather in a local store here. But I need to check this out, and local
    comes with easy guarantee (meaning if it has anything wrong for a
    while, you just take it back, they never argue).

    These touch ones I am always thinking have more to go wrong, and your
    paws are always groping all over where you read, I am *half* thinking
    to go for a touch one.

    Just might be nice to navigate and look cool while at it. You can't be
    too careful, with the increasing interference of govts, they might
    have spotters to round up old fashioned types and send them to camps.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 4, 2012
    #17
  18. dorayme wrote:
    > In article<jlgcmo$kn8$>,
    > "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> Yes, last time I saw one I was thinking a tad bigger would be nice.
    >>> But I rate highly light and easy to carry. For me, it will be a mere
    >>> reader, I have enough computing on my desk already, the idea is for a
    >>> quite different life outside.

    >>
    >> I got a nice leather cover so it is like a small thin book. If you turn
    >> off WiFi (I use Calibre via USB to load it) the battery lasts a long
    >> long time, in the order of a month...

    >
    > That's a good tip! When I get mine, I will have a running start,
    > thanks to you.
    >
    > Have been looking at where to get, seem cheaper direct from Amazon
    > rather in a local store here. But I need to check this out, and local
    > comes with easy guarantee (meaning if it has anything wrong for a
    > while, you just take it back, they never argue).


    I was surprise at how robust they feel. Really solid.

    >
    > These touch ones I am always thinking have more to go wrong, and your
    > paws are always groping all over where you read, I am *half* thinking
    > to go for a touch one.


    It might be easier to page turn and not to use that 4-way button to move
    the pointer. But other than that for $80 USD the non-touch is quite a
    bargain. I think that is Amazon strategy, keep it cheap and you you mind
    getting more than one. You can get a standard Kindle and a Fire for less
    that an iPad and with the two do the same...except fulfill the
    I-have-an-iPad smug factor!

    >
    > Just might be nice to navigate and look cool while at it. You can't be
    > too careful, with the increasing interference of govts, they might
    > have spotters to round up old fashioned types and send them to camps.
    >



    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 4, 2012
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    769
    Ben Myers
    Nov 23, 2005
  2. Leif Sterner

    USB wear and tear

    Leif Sterner, Dec 17, 2004, in forum: Intel
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    384
    Bill Davidsen
    Dec 22, 2004
  3. Bassam

    A very nice free browser to try...

    Bassam, Oct 19, 2006, in forum: Embedded
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    303
    Pete Fenelon
    Oct 20, 2006
  4. Hotspur
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    391
    Hotspur
    May 19, 2006
  5. Ed

    normal wear and tear?

    Ed, Mar 23, 2012, in forum: Dell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    275
Loading...

Share This Page