Dual pane file browser [with visuals]...

[TsunamiZ]

Here are some improvement ideas I recently suggested to a great file manager called xplorer2 [ www.zabkat.com ][ forums: http://netez.com/bbs/viewforum.php?f=18 ], which has dual pane file browsing. It would be great if XnView can introduce similar dual pane file browsing, as well [to make image management more flexible]! Below are 2 images that include notes I suggested to xplorer2, but I'm posting them here mainly to show what dual pane browsing looks like and what it does to improve the file management experience.

[ckit]

I support your request.

You will get snapped in half from the Total Commander users in though, take cover!!!

[TsunamiZ]

Thanks for the support.

BTW: I've tried Total Commander, but I much prefer the modern and elegant interface of xplorer2.

[ckit]

Thanks for the support.

BTW: I've tried Total Commander, but I much prefer the modern and elegant interface of xplorer2.

So do I
We must be careful though if XnView has too many features of xplorer2 there will be no point in using xplorer2!!

[TsunamiZ]

I'm sure they'll both continue to innovate in their fields. But dual pane, for starters, is nice.

[Danny]

Hasn't this been suggested before? I can't believe it hasn't. Yes, dual file pane is the shizzle.

[xnview]

Here are some improvement ideas I recently suggested to a great file manager called xplorer2 [ www.zabkat.com ][ forums: http://netez.com/bbs/viewforum.php?f=18 ], which has dual pane file browsing. It would be great if XnView can introduce similar dual pane file browsing, as well [to make image management more flexible]! Below are 2 images that include notes I suggested to xplorer2, but I'm posting them here mainly to show what dual pane browsing looks like and what it does to improve the file management experience.

Ok, but need a fully rewrite of the interface....

[TsunamiZ]

Yes, but the improvement in users' workflow is well worth it. Though it might take some time to implement I'm sure...

[ckit]

XnView 2.0 I would think.

[Xyzzy]

I see no use in making media browser a file manager. This way we'd get something that is good at neither.
For me the first step would be to disable second file panel...

X.

[TsunamiZ]

I see no use in making media browser a file manager. This way we'd get something that is good at neither.
For me the first step would be to disable second file panel...

X.

Is a media browser not a file broswer itself? Except is has more special features for image display. The dual panes is convenient for moving files between 2 folders or browsing 2 folders at once, etc.

[Xyzzy]

I see no use in making media browser a file manager. This way we'd get something that is good at neither.
For me the first step would be to disable second file panel...

X.

Is a media browser not a file broswer itself? Except is has more special features for image display. The dual panes is convenient for moving files between 2 folders or browsing 2 folders at once, etc.

I wrote file manager, not file browser, and that makes a difference.
For copying between two folders current tree is perfectly enough. With two file panels, you still cannot browse two folders at the same time anyway, so you can use present folder tree or favourites or directory list to quickly jump between two folders.

Besides, if you want extensive file management capabilites, why don't you go for one of the file managers with media display support?

X.

[TsunamiZ]

The same workflow elements that makes a file manager efficient makes a file browser efficient. XnView can manage files in itself--not just browse. Dual pane is just an organized approach to display 2 folders simultaneously on screen, for more intuitive interaction with 2 folders simultaneously. Also good for comparing files between 2 folders side-by-side. Aside from the time and effort required to add this, you can't really say it's a bad feature.

[TsunamiZ]

BTW: There is a toolbar button to quickly toggle dual pane on/off [in xplorer2].

[Xyzzy]

Aside from the time and effort required to add this, you can't really say it's a bad feature.

It's all the point. You cannot separate a feature from implementation/testing/maintaining effort when considering it's addition. Pierre wrote that GUI rewrite is required, so I consider this feature worthless. Especially that, except for general usability, I cannot find some common real-world scenarios when it's exceptionally useful AND at the sam time and I can find simple "workarounds". To much to pay for too little. And there are still a lot of image-related features to implement.

I do not agree that workflows for media browsers and file managers are similar. Just look at the market, you can easily tell the difference between them. I think it's best indication that the workflows they support are different.

X.