On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Thorsten Wilms <
t_w_@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Workspaces
> ----------
>
> The purpose of workspaces is having a means of organizing windows in sets
> and making it simple and fast to switch between them. Making one set visible
> means hiding all others (except when going into an overview).
>
> Each workspace holds a set of windows in a specific layout.
>
> If you want to have a specific window on all workspaces, you either need an
> "on all workspaces" or an "always on current workspace" feature. You are out
> of luck, if you want one window on some workspaces.
>
> Conceptually, having a single desktop background, including icons, requires
> a background layer below the workspace layer.
>
>
> Just Sets
> ---------
>
> An alternative to the workspace metaphor is dealing with sets of windows
> directly. No switching between semi-physical workspaces, just showing and
> hiding of sets of windows.
>
> While it's likely preferable that selecting one set hides the others,
> selecting several sets to have all their windows shown can be allowed
> without stretching the metaphor.
>
> The equivalent of "on all workspaces" or "always on current workspace" could
> be having one always present set, which could also hold the background and
> panel.
>
> Set membership could/should be non-exclusive. So instead of an always
> present set (aside of background and panel), there could be a "include in
> all sets" feature.
>
> In addition to sets, there could be layouts. Each set would default to a
> manual layout, but allow switching to automatic tiling layouts. Currently,
> getting to screen filling side-by-side layout is bearable thanks to the
> snapping feature, but a top/bottom split is *work*. Either could be had
> without any dragging, by having a single command to cycle through layouts
> (or several commands for switching to specific layouts).
>
>
> Stacking
> --------
>
> Currently, z-order and minimization are separate affairs, the desktop is
> very special and show-desktop is a special command.
>
> What if the desktop would be treated more like a regular window, with a
> place in the z-order that is not fixed to always-bottom?
>
> Minimization could be replaced with falling to below the desktop.
> Show-desktop would be just raising the desktop to top. Restoring windows
> would be just letting it drop to bottom again. You would probably want a
> special rule to *not* automatically raise the desktop when it receives
> focus, though.
>
> Hiding a set would be dropping the collective z-order to below the desktop.
> The z-stack would contain a little bit of history of set-selection, then.
> That selecting a set would lead to dropping the previous top set to the
> bottom and making sure the desktop is right below the selected set is
> admittedly a little complex of a story :)