Hi!

I just discovered kmeleon, and I absolutely love it - thanks!

The one feature that I personally have become very accustomed to as a long time Opera user is the way Opera handles multiple open windows.

They all open "within" Opera, so your taskbar has only one entry regardless of how many windows you have open at once. You move between windows with Hotkeys.

When I'm hot on the hunt for some info, I routinely have 10 or so open windows, which I can minimize with a single click...

As a long time IE user I don't want to use this functionality. I'm used to right-clicking on my clock and selecting minimize all windows. If this feature were implemented (and I can't see why it would need to be since WinXP will have more advanced window managment functionality including the ability to minimize all Windows of a given program) then it must be as an option. I wouldn't rate it as a high priority (history is my top)

Unless you are willing to program it yourself - the net outcome is that noone in the K-Meleon design team likes it. Trying to get a rational reason seem harder. Having all your browsing sessions intermixed with running programs is not how a good program interface should operate. We use MDI for most other windows applications - why on earth is a browser different? There should be a clear hierarchy: System - Program- Document. Most user interface books tell you that having document sorting within a program is better than not doing it. You don't lose ANYTHING, but gain a more intuitive and clean UI design. saw this on another post on these forums:

It is clean user interface practice to SEPARATE the document from the program. Period.

so why this opposition to MDI. Just because IE is badly designed and you got used to a bad interface?

WHY! should we HAVE to upgrade to WinXP just to be able to minimise my browsing sessions while still leaving my file manager on screen to access drag-and-drop file management etc.????? This IS a fairly normal thing to do. If I am word-processing with 4 open documents and i just want to have access to my desktop icons with explorer still showing - I don't have to click minimise 4 TIMES! that is why MDI is better. This is fundamental user interface stuff.... K-Meleon has great promise, and a good user interface IS important..... Be a bit flexible in your approach. At least give reasons why SDI is better (screen space doesn't make sense - task bar takes up space / you don't need to have the MDI tab bar on screen... - neither does memory - probably MDI takes less memory resources).

Future released of kmeleon will include a symbiotic loader (as an option, it will be disabled by default) which will have the ability to run invisibly, or in the system tray. In addition to (again optionally) preloading parts of kmeleon to drastically reduce load time, it will also have commands to manage all kmeleon windows. In essence it will give you all the document control of MDI while still using the SDI interface.

I, for one, will *not* be "upgrading" to XP, as I am still quite content using 95 for my windows purposes, and linux for everything else. No, you will not have to upgrade you os to gain any sort of features within kmeleon.

As I've said before, memory/speed/resource usage is not an issue. Each kmeleon window is not a separate instance, it is simply another document frame/view, just like MDI. There is a central window (albeit hidden) that manages the resources between the document windows, just like MDI.

For the record, the "separate window for each browser session" concept was initiated by Netscape, not MSIE.

For drag and drop, you know that you can drag the document over the taskbar icon, and that window will be activated, right? You don't have to minimize any documents.

None of this is indended to start a flame war. The MDI interface is not going to became a part of kmeleon unless someone else writes it. Period. If there are particular features you want, however, I will be very happy to try to include them.

-- Jeff

Notepad isn't mdi (thank god), so it was Microsoft that started the idea of having a seperate window for each document.

MDI is being phased out across all Microsoft applications and in their UI references (I think - I haven't read them). Basically, most Microsoft programs use SDI now - the whole Office suite, Internet Explorer, and as was pointed out above, even Notepad.

The idea is that Internet Explorer is not merely a web browser, it is also a bringer of web-based applications. For example, when I used Hotmail that isn't a web site for me - it's an email program. When I use a web-based office suite it's an application, and as such deserves to be treated like a program instead of a web page.

Of course, that is taken to the next level in IE with their HTA, but the same concept applies to K-Meleon.

I can't imagine Photoshop without an MDI. However, SDI makes more sense from a UI POV because Windows9x is document-oriented instead of application-oriented. The idea is that you think of a task and then work on it instead of thinking about the program. Internet Explorer or K-Meleon should be transparent. That's why Win3.x listed application names as "Notepad - DocName" and Win9x lists them as "DocName - Notepad" = the document is more important than the program.

You shouldn't "use Netscape", you should "use Slashdot" or "use NBC.com"

IMHO, Multiple open windows is a great idea and makes lot of sense, look at Netcaptor, it kicks major butt (even when it uses the IE engine ( ). Having separate windows for the same application is horrible (and a terrible waste of screen space).

--MANUEL

Run at a high enough resolution (1600x1280 is what I prefer) with a "virtual desktop" and you'll be fine for screen space. Besides, I hide every toolbar item except back and forward because I only use keyboard shorcuts.

Thank you Jeff for your reply.

I think that the concept of a symbiotic loader which doubles as a 'document manger' is a pragmatic step to take. Although I still think you shouldn't mix the document and program layers, you are at least providing an alternative for 'document' management, which is good. Does this give you 'more' than an MDI interface? You suggest that parts of the program can be pre-loaded ready for a new session, how much of a speed increase will this give / compared to the memory you will lose? I suppose this is like IE - that much of the core program are pre-loaded - although I would call IE parasitic rather than symbiotic!!!!!!! (win98 is MUCH faster if you use win98 lite to remove IE....)

In relation to MDI - my Office 2000 is definately still MDI. And most of my programs show 'program name - document name'. And still - just because microsoft use bad design philosophy, why should we??? Writing a letter to Bob and a Letter to Bill is a much more related task than rendering 3D landscapes in POVRay. The user should have the ability to control 'Letter Writing' easily when he wants to switch to file management. I regularly have 10-12 open web pages simultaneously, and switch between them. They ARE more related than my file-management. Microsoft is DUMBING down - just look at the WinXP user interface. Why do we have to follow them???

I would like to ask if mouse gesture could be included in K-Meleon. I have no appreciation how easy / difficult it would be to implement, but they add substantially to user navigation. Could you use mouse gesture to switch between windows?

thanks again.

If Notepad is an example of good SDI design - then PLEASE give me MDI!!!

Seriously, I use Ultrapad and/or Aditor Pro, both MDI, and they work much better, having two open documents resized and tiled for text comparisons is much easier than opening notepad twice, then manually moving them and then resizing them on screen to look tiled.

Explorer is the classic example of Microsoft bad design. Opening two explorers and moving/resizing them to do file manipulations between directories IS ridiculous. That is why so many shell fixes and independant file managers (I use Servant Salamander) have become avaiable. This is a CLEAR example of why SDI is not a clean way to organise running tasks. My 'C:\' drive and my 'D:\' drive are more related coceptually than my 'Slashdot' - why are they going to be treated equally???

In relation to Joshua's Reply:

Sorry, but I (and many others) can't afford a 1600x1280 monitor / graphics card. For many people just HAVING a computer is a privilige - why should a good user interface experience only be available to those who can afford it? SDI leads to more screen space being lost when you have two open documents on-screen. And most people won't have the luxury of high resolutions - Most are still on 800x600. Having worked in Cameroon for a couple of months - most computers are capable of 640x480 - why should they be denied a good UI???? And I have a virtual screen mamager - but I also browse 10-15 web pages - virtual screens become hard to navigate with so many of them.

1. User Interface design is about consistency, it's about making the user feel that they are in control. Sometimes it's better to sacrifice a good idea for the sake of consistency. At least, that's what Jakob Nielson would say.
2. MacOS has a much more efficent design because of the unified 'File' menu across all applications. Windows is designed to have many toolbars floating about, it is designed with SDI in mind.
3. Obviously there are varying opinions on this issue. the results of the poll were 300:364, basically split evenly. I like the way kmeleon operates right now. If the interface is changed to accomodate MDI, it should be provided as an option since:
- half of the people want it
- the code is already implemented that way, so it can't be very difficult to keep all of the current code while adding a new feature (and moving towards bloatware)
4. Internet Explorer is my favourite browser and my understanding of kmeleon when I first downloaded version 0.1 was that it would essentially be the IE interface running with the Mozilla rendering engine.
5. For tiling documents, I've gotten used to "minimize all", open the documents that I want, "tile windows", using Windows's built-in window-management functions (on the clock)

Hi Joshua,

Point 1: Well, most users use Word / Powerpoint etc. which are MDI, so consistency is allowing document management. But then most users also use NS / IE - so they have accepted that browsing is a 'special case'. If Netscape / Mosaic (what IE is based on) had been MDI before, then probably we would all be VERY happy with MDI. You have a point that user X has probably come from IE / NS so SDI is more familiar for 'browsing', but they also have lots of experience of MDI too. The user is NOT in control when word-processor, browsing, music making, graphics production etc. documents are all jumbled together.
Point 2: Having lots of toolbars actually means that the program takes a greater 'dominance' of the user experience. Less 'changes' when switching programs in the Mac interface, so the document is the most salient feature.
Point 3: It is because users are 'used' to this interface for browsing. If NS / Mosaic had been MDI - i bet you many more people would have been for MDI. If we always work on consensus - then INNOVATION dies!
Having the option would of course be IDEAL!
Point 5: Doing this takes 4-5seconds, I may switch programs every 5-10 minutes - it is simply not a streamlined way to manage user interface time.

sorry for being so pedantic, it is just that it irritates me that MS 'decides' that we have to use a computer in a specific fashion, and we are coralled into doing so...

> Point 1: Well, most users use Word / Powerpoint etc. which are MDI
They were up until Office 2000. as of Office 2000 they are SDI. In Office 2002, they default to SDI with an option buried within the options tabs that turns on MDI - needless to say, most casual users will never find it and they'll become aquainted with SDI.

> Point 3: It is because users are 'used' to this interface for browsing.
> ... INNOVATION dies!
I'm rather pedantic myself when it comes to UI design. =) I look to gurus such as Jakob Niesen and Donald Norman, etc. for my thoughts on the subject. Jakob's law of user experience - "users spend most of their time using other programs so they'll expect your program to look and feel and work the same way as all of the other programs." I agree with that - standardized GUI widgets, for example, give users the feeling that they're in control.

Microsoft stated back when IE4 was released that there wouldn't be any major changes in the product until version 8 or 9 - basically they said that this is the UI, now get used to it. They've stuck with that approach (IE4 is IE5 is IE6 will be IE7 ...) Consider that Internet Explorer has 80%+ market share and MS has publically stated that it won't be fundamentally changing any time soon. (I guess I mainly stuck that in to show off my obsure knowledge of MS plans =)

At one point, Microsoft had a concept that Windows would be completly document-centric. I think that they've backed off on the plan, but we still see it in things like being able to open any type of Document in Internet Explorer/Netscape and then have that programs toolbars appear and being able to work with it - try opening a Microsoft Office doc, especially. ust a note about document-centricity.

I suppose we agree that there are advantages to both approaches - with document-centricity being the new and bold vision that never really flew. And app-centric MDI interfaces being the tried-and-true makes sense and works well approach.

Thanks for your very impressive display of obscure knowledge, Joshua!!!

So I can't turn MDI back on in Office 2000? I've just upgraded from Office 97, and have noticed SDI. I often have two documents open at the same time for comparisons, cut-n-paste etc. and now almost a HALF! of my screen space disappears to the UI!!!! It is unusable for such document work. What advantage have I gained from SDI? Why do you think microsoft have switched? (go on, give us some more obsure knowledge

Although I do agree with you that the user interface should be consistent (have you ever used Sonique, BEAUTIFUL skinned freeform UI but really hard to use), I also believe that where you can improve on user interaction, you should. Mouse gestures are one example of a huge improvement which really should be adopted. Move left with right mouse down = go back in browser. Neat and fast.

a little off topic, but gestures are already in kmeleon. you can right click, move down-right about 3 pixels, then lift the right button to go back. to go forward works the same way, but you have to move about 20 pixels.

someone wondered aloud why anyone would want sdi, and so I started asking myself why. now I know. I alt+tab like a mofo. if I'm in notepad, and want to get to a specific browser window in kmeleon, I would much rather alt+tab+tab+tab than alt+tab+tab, ctrl+tab+tab. similarly, I like to see everything that I have open at one time. in mdi, I know kmeleon is running, but I don't know if there are 4 windows open or 400. another reason is I like to open windows from different programs up next to each other, like notepad and kmeleon for example. in mdi, I'd have to resize the main notepad window, then the main kmeleon window, then the sub windows. it's much harder to manipulate and inter-mingle windows from different programs in mdi.

> So I can't turn MDI back on in Office 2000? I've just upgraded from Office 97

As with most of Office2000 its a confused jumble (for instance, the personalized toolbars should have debuted in Windows, not Office, and they should have had different default settings ... ) In Office2k, some programs (like MS Word) use SDI only - with no alternatives or other options. Some programs (like Access and Excel) defult to SDI but have an option in Tools -> Options to revert to MDI. Some programs (like FrontPage) only work in MDI with no option for SDI at all. It's a real mess (that's made a whole lot clearer in OfficeXP). Since I'm an SDI junkie I've never actually done it, but I was talking to people who used a crack on Word 2000 that reverts it to MDI (even though there's no option for it in the registry)

Here, I searched Google for it and found this site that describes how to use their 'special file' to convert Word back:
http://www.basementnoises.com/pstnftb/2000_09_13.htm

> Sonique, BEAUTIFUL skinned freeform UI but really hard to use
I like WiNAMP's approach to skinning teh best of all programs I've used. Version 2.x has a really, really easy-to-use skinning system - edit the bitmap files and load - and GUI widgets *can't* be moved around (which I consider a boon for usability). Since I'm sure to like a different UI than everyone else on the planet (I'm really into minimalism) I created my own, personalized WiNAMP skin ... everyone should make their own skin that's perfect for themself IMO. I also think that Winamp3 is a step backwards because:
- skinning is too difficult with its XML-based architecture
- it gives users too much control and most people can't make a comprehendable UI
(however it's *damn* powerful - which is good =)

> Mouse gestures are one example of a huge improvement
am I the only one who has both hands on the keyboard at (almost) all times when usign a computer? I think I know every keyboard shortcut for my browser. I love the Mac system of being able to type in the name of a link rather than having to click on it. I'll leave mouse gestures to Black and White =)

To Brian: Of course we all have personal preferences, your'e obviously are a 'document' head!!!! My position is just that a user is more likely to have two windows of the same program open than different program windows, where MDI is better. Even in the mixed program case, you can tile two program windows that use MDI just as easily as you can for SDI. It is actually better when you do this because: Say you open notepad and kmeleon - you have two tiled windows, and you do some cut-n-paste. Say you want to cut-n-paste from another web document. IF kmeleon was MDI, you can bring up another document easily without doing ANY additional window shuffling/minimisation. SDI would mean alt tabbing to the next document window, minimising the first kmeleon window, THEN retiling the two - MUCH less efficient...

Thanks for the gesture of mouse gestures!!!! I assume that this is currently an alpha implementation of working on a more robust mechanism???

To Joshua:

Thanks for pandering to my MDI'ism with the Word2000 fix - i appreciate it!!!!

I can remember shortcuts for 1 program, but I regularly use 5-6 which all have conflicting shortcuts - my brain fuses, and then mouse/keyboard combo quicker.

How does mac name thing work? www.winamp.com/skins and www.winamp.com/plugins still contain the same first 12 alphanumeric characters??

I also think Winamp interface is brilliant - looks good, and is consistent between skins. If kmeleon ever goes down the slippery skin road, model it on the winamp 2.x concept.
I agree Winamp 3.x is going down the Sonique route - which is a step backward. Having said that though - I use the most freeform Shell replacement you can get - LITESTEP. You have COMPLETE control over the shell and how you interface with your computer, it is wonderfully powerful and modular. You can control tasks much more powerfully than the task bar, and icon/startmenu options are way better. It also uses almost 1/2 memory of Explorer and is more stable once you set up your interface... You just have to learn a new scripting language to control it all!!!!!!! Everything has a price.......

> How does mac name thing work? www.winamp.com/skins and www.winamp.com/plugins still contain the same first 12 alphanumeric characters??

The new Type-select navigation feature lets you use the keyboard to move among links on a Web page. As you begin typing, the browser places a focus ring around the text or graphic link that most closely matches your keystrokes. When you press Return, the browser goes to the selected link. It's the same way that you can navigate the finder using only a keyboard.

"
Thanks for the gesture of mouse gestures!!!! I assume that this is currently an alpha implementation of working on a more robust mechanism???
"

The current gesture system has been implemented in 0.4. it even recognizes that you're about to do a gesture and provides some visual cues to help you in your gesturing. there are a lot of commands that can be done with the current gesture system, consult the visual cues for a complete listing.

Well I see I started quite a debate here! Interesting stuff guys

For those wondering about navigation within Opera, literally everything has keyboard shortcuts - you barely need a mouse at all if you get them all wired.

That said of course the only real one I use is flipping between documents and occasionally hitting the "back button" shortcut. Being an alt+tab kinda guy myself, I find this a very efficient way to get around...

----why on earth is a browser different? There should be a clear hierarchy: System - Program- Document. Most user interface books tell you that having document sorting within a program is better than not doing it. You don't lose ANYTHING, but gain a more intuitive and clean UI design.-----

Say what?!? You lasy freak. I hate MDI. MDI stops creativity. It was created for stupid pepole with no sense of organization. Why is Macintosh so popular among artists? 'cutz it's SDI all the way. It'a a little chaotic, but it's so much more simple!!!

> Why is Macintosh so popular among artists? 'cutz it's SDI all the way.

Most Macintosh applications that I have used are MDI (I use System 7). I use the Application menu to select a program (say, Filemaker) and then under the 'Window' menu for that program I can switch between documents in that program. That sounds like MDI to me ...

>It was created for stupid pepole with no sense of organization.


Bulls***!

It wasn't created, it evolved as a way of doing things. Any intelligent person would realize that different people have different ways of doing things. Some are mousers, some keyboarders. Some people prefer and SDI design, some prefer MDI. Now, look here -- WINDOWS IS MDI. Period. Forget about what applications in particular that you are using. Or pretend that they are all notepad. If I wanted to switch between 3 Notepad windows, I can Alt-Tab or go down to the taskbar and find the button. When I am using a computer, it isn't about what program I am in, but what I want to get done. I know I can get more done in a mulit-threaded, MDI-style OS than I could in, say, DOS. I spend most of my day at work doing web-design. I routinely have 3-4 applications open, Opera among them. Opera could have up to 5 or 6 windows (in my case) of its own. When I switch applications, I like to minimize the one I am in with the mouse and mouse over to the program I want. I rarely Alt-Tab (holdover from my Mac days). But when I'm in Opera, I'll Ctrl-Tab between its windows. Why am I inconsistant, you ask? Because I'm human, and that's the way we are. Software should be adaptive/responsive to how it users work. They should have to adapt to software...down that road leads to slavery to machines. I have a very serious question. Why would it be a bad thing to have an *option* to work in MDI? What would it hurt? According to the poll, you could potentially lose 45% of the people who might have used K-meleon if it had MDI. I know that I like K-meleons (gecko's) rendering better than Opera's, but Opera works the way that I do, and K-meleon doesn't (for now anyway).

Seeing that smtrembl seems to think I am a lazy freak ? (lazy is with a z smtrembl)

Say what?!? You lasy freak. I hate MDI. MDI stops creativity. It was created for stupid pepole with no sense of organization. Why is Macintosh so popular among artists? 'cutz it's SDI all the way. It'a a little chaotic, but it's so much more simple!!!

As Joshua says, Mac is largely MDI. And most graphics applications - I use both Macromedia Freehand 9 and Adobe Illustrator 9 and Photoshop V5.5 are ALL MDI. So your rant about how MDI stops artist creativity seems a 'little' bit badly thought out.... Try harder next time. And why is a system where things are organised by task less simple, and yes their users obviously more stupid??? I think you shoot yourself in the foot here a bit, SDI=simple MDI=for stupid people - surely stupid people should like simple things??????? really, think before you engage your fingers........

If you want to say that SDI is for 'stupid' people, you can. However most users fat that definition 'stupid'. I'd prefer an alternate term.

Here is a quote from a UI study:

Quote

All but the most advanced users did not understand how to manage overlapping windows efficiently. Beginners had the most trouble-when they minimized a window, they considered it "gone" if it was obscured by another window. We heard many stories from educators (and witnessed in the lab) how users caused the computer to run out of RAM by starting multiple copies of a program instead of switching back to the first copy. Intermediate users were more proficient but still had trouble, especially with Multiple-Document-Interface (MDI) applications such as Program Manager and Microsoft Word. Market research data confirmed the problem by revealing that 40% of intermediate Windows users didn't run more than one program at a time because they had some kind of trouble with the process.

BTW, this board should implement either HTMK or special formatting for UBB-style code such as

Quote


I guess the Mac interface has many of the advantages of both MDI and SDI systems - it's the best of both worlds. They have separate application and task switchers. But once the Windows are open, they do more to inter-mingle just like an SDI application. From the perspective of a user, the way that the windows act is SDI-like.

--------------------------------------------------------
40% of intermediate Windows users didn't run more than one program at a time because they had some kind of trouble with the process.
--------------------------------------------------------

Which means that the other SIXTY PERCENT did run more than one program at a time.....?

No matter how you slice this pie, roughly half the people will want things one way and the other half the other way.

--------------------------------------------------------
I guess the Mac interface has many of the advantages of both MDI and SDI systems - it's the best of both worlds. They have separate application and task switchers. But once the Windows are open, they do more to inter-mingle just like an SDI application. From the perspective of a user, the way that the windows act is SDI-like.
---------------------------------------------------------
This is my point -- The user should have the option of MDI...interfaces are about options....otherwise we could all just build Turing Machines on paper to solve all of our problems.

-=Gonzotek=-

Sorry Joshua, I absolutely DID NOT intend to infer SDI = stupid. I was trying to point out the inconsistencies of smtrembl line of logic. For me to then follow such faulty logic would not make sense on my part. Again sorry for any confusion caused.

-----------------------------
40% of intermediate Windows users didn't run more than one program at a time because they had some kind of trouble with the process.
-----------------------------

This is ALSO a problem of SDI surely? Only running 1 program at a time means not understanding how to control applications windows. This research is pointing to the fact that managing windows (SDI OR MDI) can cause problems for users.

I agree with you entirely that some users don't understand document management. My flatmate for one. However, I noted that he also has THE SAME problem with program mamagement as he does with documents. He often opens up 2 versions of word, and doesn't know how to switch between them (win98 where icons are double click, and quick launch buttons are single click - not good UI choice). In a way, the 'Window' menu is as user friendly as the task bar. This problem applies to both. Minimizing a window leaves a window bar, minimizing a program leaves a task icon. Ana a tabbed MDI interface is JUST like a task-bar shell, with documents/tasks always visible and lined up. Obviously both require that a novice user understands some fundamental principles. But these principles are really the same. I also think that the core concept is wholly close to most novices understanding. that is that e.g. a word-processor is a tool to write letters, it is like a typewriter / pen. The letter is the product of such a tool, and more than one letter can be written with a pen/typewriter. This is not conceptually difficult, you do have to show someone how to change the paper first. I think to expect a complete novice to sit there and use a computer like a pro is a little too much to ask for. And my view is that SDI presents the SAME conceptual challenge to a novice, but less user flexibilty for the more experienced user.

I forgot to post the link to the summary of the above referenced study:
www.microsoft.com/usability/UEPostings/The%20WindowsSUP%C2%AE-SUP%2095%20User%20Interface%20A%20Case%20Study%20in%20Usability%20Engineering.htm

The summary is a discussion of how Microsoft's UI group created the Windows95 interface.

One of the issues they addressed when creating the Win95 interface was that with Win3.x people didn't know how many programs they had running. With MDI doesn't a user experience the same problem - without switching between programs they can't tell if a certain web site is up? The Windows taskbar is great in that it always shows the user exactly what programs they have running at a glance. SDI programs can take advantage of this.

I agree that this issue esentially splits down the middle. From a conceptual standpoint MDI seems better. However, I prefer SDI because I'm used to it - every progam I use except Photoshop is SDI (MS Word, FlashFXP, Dreamweaver, Windows Explorer, etc.)