Quote:
Originally Posted by kbs666
As a developer I can tell you that often making any significant change to a UI takes far more time than the average end user would believe.
For instance to do what is called for here, You would need to create a table in the DB to represent every view into each realm with a binary field to represent whether each node is presently expanded or not. Then every time that view is displayed you would need to query the DB to get all that state information and then walk the tree and toggle each node correctly.
Which is all certainly doable but if you'll go look you'll notice complaints about how long it takes to switch topics and views right now. This would make it even slower. So the question becomes is it worth it until there is time to work on performance tuning?
When you're dealing with small software projects sometimes you have to wait for features that other programs have.
This feature is desirable but not nearly as desirable to LWD as the Content Market or the Calendar or, probably, export.
|
In general, I agree... but two minor points...
First, the state of the tree is managed in each
tab, not per View. Two tabs accessing items in the same View can have different states for folders in the hierarchy.. including whether or not the hierarchy is even used on that tab.
Second, it is unlikely to be stored in the database as that syncs to the cloud. The existence of a local preferences file, which also tracks the current open topics to display the next time the program is launched, makes it more likely to be where the states are stored. This allows the Player Edition to browse the topic state independently of the GM's settings.
Now, I use a lot of tabs.. 10 or more, commonly, with maps and places and related story elements available to me while I am running my games.
There seems to be a perception that RealmWorks is showing ONE "tree" in the left-side navigation pane, like the Windows Explorer (one navigation pane, and one content pane). This is not the case; each
tab in RealmWorks is like one instance of Windows Explorer, with its own hierarchy "tree" (if the user has chosen to use it) and content pane linked together.
I am also a developer.. of Windows UI programs and databases that they work with. I have been the chief architect of solutions for global enterprises sharing data in near-real-time world-wide. All that qualifies me to say is that I have a clue how much I
don't know about LoneWolf's design and effort, and how little qualification I have to second-guess them.
As it stands now, I am happy with the tree as-is. I use it fully expanded, usually, only collapsing parts when I find that more convenient. In general, I navigate from the links in the current topic to new ones that I need. Defaulting to "all collapsed" or even more compact than that would annoy me. So that's likely one where LoneWolf can't win.. there are vocal advocates for one, and a silent number of users who don't care or like it as it is... but who might become vocal if it changed. Either way, one default can't please everyone.