padding
Carl
But I wish it had padding. That is,
pad 100 100 0 0
would limit the window to a portion of the screen. This would be very
useful for large screens, on which web browser pages look ridiculously
stretched out. Perhaps there could be another set of direction keys
to control the padding.
William Diem
Thanks. It's great to hear when people get some use out of it.
> But I wish it had padding. That is,
>
> pad 100 100 0 0
>
> would limit the window to a portion of the screen. This would be very
> useful for large screens, on which web browser pages look ridiculously
> stretched out.
Well, it doesn't sound like the "reserved" keys (in the conf file) are
what you are looking for.
If there were a real need for (static) left-right padding I could add
a reserved_left and reserved_right key.
I'm trying to figure out what you're envisioning. Is it a per window
padding? A per view padding? A universal padding on all views?
I guess the idea strikes me as a little odd, since I'm usually
worrying about creating as much space as possible for windows.
It sounds like the problem you are trying to fix, judging from your
example, is poorly done dynamic web page layouts, so you end up with a
1000+px wide column of text. Just to make sure we're on the same page:
This is a general problem (as in, if the browser is maximized--a
fairly typical way of using a browser these days--on a large screen,
the page looks dumb regardless of the window manager), n'est ce pas?
If I've understood you, and this is the issue, I'm not inclined to
hack around poorly written web pages in the wm. If this is really irksome, and
someone really wants to compensate for these apps, it seems like the correct
solution would be using user-css in the browser, e.g,
body {
max-width 50em;
};
(I haven't actually tried the above--in fact it has been a really long
time since
I tinkered with anything web related, so it probably has several dumb
errors in it.)
After all this is precisely the sort of thing user-css is meant to deal with.
As a more hackish approach, the user could always stick an empy xterm
on either side of the browser and resize the browser window.
Anyway, do let me know if I missed the point.
Thanks for the feedback.
Will
Carl
1. I want some space on the left to see Conky.
2. Web designers are finding that limited width layouts are more
readable. For instance, the New York Times and many other sites. The
same holds true for text editors to some extent. Your eyes don't have
to travel as far from left to right. On my wide-screen monitor this
is especially true. So on musca and xmonad I have left-right padding
which I can toggle on or off. Just having a fixed padding wouldn't be
good enough. The ideal would be if the frame got wider as the number
of columns increased, but this might be asking for too much, a key
binding to change the padding would be fine.
William Diem
and _right just like the current reserved_top _bottom.
On the other hand--and not to take on a my-way's-the-best attitude,
but something like dzen is much more efficient as far as screen real
estate goes (although one does lose some of the readability of a
vertical list of stats).
Anyway, I have no problem adding that in if people would get some use
out of it. I might consider making it independently togglable (right
now it is turned off in fullscreen, and on otherwise). But it would
take some convincing.
Just in general so you know where I am coming from, I have a huge fear
of complicating things without need (this is a big part of why I don't
want to implement a floating layer). I don't want the list of
keybinding longer than absolutely necessary (it is already longer than
I'd like). I want the behavior to be dead-simple, and the keybinding
easy to learn (and remember). And I want the behavior to be completely
predictable. And for that matter I don't want the code more convoluted
than absolutely necessary.
As to (2) I'm not trying to be dense, but I'm not convinced of the
benefit. I just visited the NYT website, and as you said it is a
static layout. But the site designer did consider what would happen if
the screen was wider than the layout's width. And he chose to pad it
out in white to match the page. Maybe the New York Times site isn't
the best example of what you are talking about, but (a) I don't think
it looks dumb on a wide screen (they thought of that scenario and made
an educated decision of how to handle it) and (b) I can't see how it
would look better padded out with whatever the desktop color happens
to be--as opposed to being padded out with a color or image that the
web designer picked specifically to match the site.
Like I said, I don't see the benefit, but if I'm missing something I'm
willing to be convinced.
Best,
Will
Carl
something similar, that will tell you something.
William Diem
I really didn't mean to give offense; If I said anything that came
across as harsh or dismissive I apologize.
Best,
Will