Split panes vertically (4 panes) Quadro-View /Quad-View

[Geiri]

Is it possible to have 3 file windows?

[MVV]

Not in a single TC instance.

[Geiri]

I was thinking about Quickview/mediaplayer window for music sorting and be able to sort into various folders as I played and viewed.

[noen]

There is a way to use 4 panels fairly easy.
If you force exactly 4 panels, you can remain their functionality (and keyboard functionality).
To do this you need only one key combination to flip outside panels.

Example:
Panel are shown with numbers [1][2][3][4], where [2] and [3] are main panels.
Tab key switch between [2] and [3] as normal.

Shift-tab switch placement of panel/outside panel pairs:
If [2] was active it changes [1]<->[2] this means [1][2][3][4] -> [2][1][3][4]
If [3] was active it changes [3]<->[4] this means [1][2][3][4] -> [1][2][4][3]
Shift-tab changes only location of side panels - not the active panel focus.

This way you can have 4 panels visible.
Remain functionality of keys and maintain source-target way of command.
It require only one new shortcut and saving 4 panels state to *.ini.

...but it should be implemented first... (:

[Hacker]

For some reason I actually like this idea.

Roman

[MVV]

Are these panels numbered like this?

Code: Select all

[1][2]
[3][4]

And I don't understand why Shift+Tab switches panels instead of just changing focus...

[noen]

No, they are placed and numbered [1][2][3][4].
Simply, straight and almost graphically it was explained earlier. Just read it carefully.

And I don't understand why Shift+Tab switches panels instead of just changing focus...

- Because shift-tab is practically not used
- Because it do not require to change anything else in keyboard shortcuts
- Because you can treated panel "as object" so it can be reused 4 times (and can save them to .ini as usual)
- Because you can use it easily without changing keyboard habits
- Because it not require so much work to implement (in comparison to other ideas)
- Because it respect
1/

::
So the idea is to have exact one active source panel, multiple inactive source panels, exact one active target panel and multiple inactive target panels.
::

2/

::
Total Commander is optimized to do a lot via keyboard. If you have more than 2 panels, there wouldn't be a fixed target panel any more. Therefore it would no longer be possible to copy with F5 to _the_ target panel. The user would always have to choose which is the actual target. Currently, with multiple tabs you already have multiple source and target panels, but it's always clear which is the current source and which is the current target.

3/

::
It is much more important to suggest complete behaviour model than to show how it may look, and this model shouldn't confuse current TC users. So changing meaning of existing Ctrl+Arrow and Alt+Arrow shortcuts isn't good. Also I think copy/move to all panels by standard F5/F6 is not a thing that should be done.

[Hacker]

noen,
I agree with MVV here. I think Shift-Tab could work like this:

If [2] was active it changes focus between [1]<->[2] this means [1][2][3][4] -> [1][2][3][4]
If [3] was active it changes focus between [3]<->[4] this means [1][2][3][4] -> [1][2][3][4]

Roman

[noen]

But 4 panels in 2 lines is not intuitive which panel is the target/which is source - especially when they are in different lines...
Your way of seeing it takes us back to the beginning of this thread (i think) - look at 2/ in previous message.
...please explain to me your way of this, because i cannot catch your way...

[MVV]

No, they are placed and numbered [1][2][3][4].
Simply, straight and almost graphically it was explained earlier. Just read it carefully.

You hav told nothing about panel placement in your first post, and it is more logical to place 4 panels in two rows (just because 4 panels in a row require too much horizontal space) so my question is fully correct.

- Because...

This doesn't answer the question why Shift+Tab swaps panels instead of just switching focus. Yes, this key is not used, and so on, but Shift+Tab usually switches focus everywhere, not swapping anything.

There were suggested some alternate concepts earlier in this topic which also has similar benefits.
And I think that it will be easier to e.g. use Shift+Tab for switching target panel between others three and use Tab for switching focus between source and target panel. So you have source, target and two inactive panels that may become target panel on Shift+Tab: if [1] is active, [2] is target and you press Shift+Tab, [3] becomes target and [2] becomes inactive; another Shift+Tab: [4] panel becomes target one; then Tab: [4] becomes source and [1] becomes target panel.
This way you can move focus to every panel regardless of its placement using Shift+Tab some times (to make it target panel) and then Tab (to make it source). Source and target panels should be marked visually.

[noen]

You hav told nothing about panel placement in your first post, and it is more logical to place 4 panels in two rows (just because 4 panels in a row require too much horizontal space) so my question is fully correct.

But I have drew it exactly as it should be placed.

This doesn't answer the question why Shift+Tab swaps panels instead of just switching focus. Yes, this key is not used, and so on, but Shift+Tab usually switches focus everywhere, not swapping anything.

There were suggested some alternate concepts earlier in this topic which also has similar benefits.
And I think that it will be easier to e.g. use Shift+Tab for switching target panel between others three and use Tab for switching focus between source and target panel. So you have source, target and two inactive panels that may become target panel on Shift+Tab: if [1] is active, [2] is target and you press Shift+Tab, [3] becomes target and [2] becomes inactive; another Shift+Tab: [4] panel becomes target one; then Tab: [4] becomes source and [1] becomes target panel.
This way you can move focus to every panel regardless of its placement using Shift+Tab some times (to make it target panel) and then Tab (to make it source). Source and target panels should be marked visually.

Placing panels in two rows is NOT a great idea when you have wide (and not tall) monitors.
This sounds like working through a key hole.
Placing
[1][2][3][4]
or
[1][2]
[3][4]
is a personal preferences, but i think my way of seeing more in the same time is better than seeing less in a smaller panels.

Your way of switching focus (src/dst) is more complicated for programmer and for TC user.
First of all Tab is switching focus, Shift+Tab is switching focus in reverse order.

So, switching with Tab/Shift+Tab with no sequence is less intuitive than Tab switching src/dst and Shift+Tab switching panels pair.
In this case switching is only in one direction.

Let Tab and Shift+Tab working like it works (src/dst) - not changed.
I think that better way is to use LeftArrow/RightArrow or Shift-LeftArrow/Shift-RightArrow to move panel pair selection left or right.
([1][2])[3][4] -right-> [1]([2][3])[4]
::
[1][2]([3][4]) -left-> [1]([2][3])[4]
The selected panel pair should to be marked clearly for a user.

It would be nice if Author implement 4 panels, but there is higher probability he will do it when there is less to do.
In my scenario, nothing from the shortcut key (except shift+tab) changes. There is no need to mark which panels are active in UI.
Less work to do and less changes to the way you use TC (i hope).

[MVV]

But I have drew it exactly as it should be placed.

It is not clear that [1][2][3][4] means that panels are placed in a row. And you shouldn't hardcode horizontal panel placement because there will be people who will want to place them in a square.

So, switching with Tab/Shift+Tab with no sequence is less intuitive than Tab switching src/dst and Shift+Tab switching panels pair.

It is pretty clear which panel will get focus on next Shift+Tab or Tab press: Tab always switches source focus between two panels, and Shift+Tab always switches target focus between other three panels.
While switching focus with Tab and switching panels with Shift+Tab is much less intuitive.

I think that better way is to use LeftArrow/RightArrow or Shift-LeftArrow/Shift-RightArrow to move panel pair selection left or right.

These keys already have their functions.

In my scenario, nothing from the shortcut key (except shift+tab) changes.

There are a lot of similar scenarious suggested so your one is not a panacea, it is just another alternative. And, as you see, I've found it not intuitive.

[noen]

But I have drew it exactly as it should be placed.

It is not clear that [1][2][3][4] means that panels are placed in a row. And you shouldn't hardcode horizontal panel placement because there will be people who will want to place them in a square.

You are the only one who said that you do not catch...

So, switching with Tab/Shift+Tab with no sequence is less intuitive than Tab switching src/dst and Shift+Tab switching panels pair.

It is pretty clear which panel will get focus on next Shift+Tab or Tab press: Tab always switches source focus between two panels, and Shift+Tab always switches target focus between other three panels.
While switching focus with Tab and switching panels with Shift+Tab is much less intuitive.

It is pretty unclear for me. Please explain with examples as I do earlier.

I think that better way is to use LeftArrow/RightArrow or Shift-LeftArrow/Shift-RightArrow to move panel pair selection left or right.

These keys already have their functions.

As you said, there is hard to find free shortcut... (:
So, better way is to make it simple.

In my scenario, nothing from the shortcut key (except shift+tab) changes.

There are a lot of similar scenarious suggested so your one is not a panacea, it is just another alternative. And, as you see, I've found it not intuitive.

I did not say this is a panacea. You said that.
You are skeptic and you are arguing for square as hard as I prefer linear alignment.
Try to understand the way other users prefer (even if you do not agree).
As I said - it is a preference of users. Why not ask Author for both?
But we have to create reasonable scenario - foreseeing every possibility to make the coding process easier for the Author.
If he does not agree to code, we lose this feature. Then we can stop writing here... I hope you do not want this scenario?

[Sob]

If I understand it correctly, you propose this fixed layout:

[secondary left panel][primary left panel][primary right panel][secondary right panel]

Where source and target panels can be only primary ones, i.e. always the two in the middle. So everything should stay exactly as it's now and the only thing to add is a new shortcut to swap primary and secondary panel (left or right, depending on which is active). Like this, it should be really easy to implement.

But I'm not sure, if it would satisfy everyone's expectations. Fans of two rows are already out, but I don't know even about those who would like just one row. They would for sure want to interact with secondary panels directly. They could drag files from primary to secondary using mouse, it shouldn't be a problem. But it would not be possible using keyboard (without additional modifications).
Or just simple clicking on secondary panel to select it, what should happen? Should it automatically swap with primary one? But what if you don't want it swapped? For example, you might want to just run a command from button bar for selected file. But if it doesn't swap, you're suddenly in secondary panel and what prevents you from launching some standard action like copy? It could work, because the target would be always the opposite primary panel. But I'm not sure if it would still be as clear as it was at the beginning. You could avoid such problems by blocking secondary panels from user interaction, but I'm sure it would feel too limiting for many people.

[MVV]

You are the only one who said that you do not catch...

And how many people don't read this topic or just don't answer?

It is pretty unclear for me. Please explain with examples as I do earlier.

You have 4 panels: 1, 2, 3, 4. The concept works with any panel placement so it doesn't matter (but for some people placement matters - e.g. maximum drag distance is less with square panel placement). I'll mark source one as [x] and target one as _y_.
So, when you press Tab (read columns), focus is switched between source and target panels (source becomes target and vice versa), like now:

Code: Select all

[1] _2_  3   4 	|	[1]  2  _3_  4 	|	[1]  2   3  _4_	|	 1  [2] _3_  4 	|	 1  [2]  3  _4_ 	|	 1   2  [3] _4_
_1_ [2]  3   4 	|	_1_  2  [3]  4 	|	_1_  2   3  [4]	|	 1  _2_ [3]  4 	|	 1  _2_  3  [4] 	|	 1   2  _3_ [4]
(loop)

And when you press Shift+Tab, only target panel changes:

Code: Select all

[1] _2_  3   4 	|	_1_ [2]  3   4 	|	_1_  2  [3]  4 	|	_1_  2   3  [4]
[1]  2  _3_  4 	|	 1  [2] _3_  4 	|	 1  _2_ [3]  4 	|	 1  _2_  3  [4]
[1]  2   3  _4_	|	 1  [2]  3  _4_	|	 1   2  [3] _4_	|	 1   2  _3_ [4]
(loop)

Of course mouse click should make clicked panel new source one. And there should be direct commands for making any panel source or target (shortcuts may be assigned by users).

You are skeptic and you are arguing for square as hard as I prefer linear alignment.

I only say that concept must work with all panel placements. However your concept may work with square placement if panels are numbered like this (so the two lower panels are always secondary):

Code: Select all

[2] [3]
[1] [4]

Or just simple clicking on secondary panel to select it, what should happen?

Indeed it is an interesting question.