I'm basically in two different modes when I work on my macbook. In one mode, I have a few apps running in desktop 1, another in desktop 2, a few in desktop 3 etc. Then when I switch from work to school mode, I want to run an entirely different layout at the click of a button instead of closing applications, retiling them, making new workspaces, and re-organizing everything.
Anyone know how to accomplish this? Maybe two different user accounts and just log in and out of both? But then it won't 100% preserve the state of everything, like when you close the lid and re-login..
Related
I'm wondering if there's a good way to automate changing my display configuration in Windows 10?
I have 3 monitors attached, and I find myself wanting to configure my system in one of 3 ways:
All monitors set up to extend the desktop.
Only my central (largest) monitor enabled, others both disabled.
Only my right-most monitor enabled, others both disabled (I think hook up a spare HDMI cable on my center monitor to my laptop, and the monitor automatically switches to that input).
Manually, this involves opening the Display Settings panel, selecting the monitors, and either marking them as "Disconnected" or "Extend desktop on this display".
Is there some nice, scripting-friendly way to do this? I'm more comfortable doing this sorta thing on Linux, where I'd whip up a quick shell script to call the xrandr command a few times, or something like that...
I am very new to applescript, but was wondering if it is possible to open applications to different desktops "spaces" using applescript. I have found how to launch applications, but don't know how to assign them to different desktops. Basically I am looking to open;
Outlook - Desktop 1
Skype - Desktop 1
Safari - Desktop 2
Onenote - Desktop 3
Thanks for any help, I really appreciate it.
Last system versions do not include any scripting of spaces. the only thing you can now do is to assign, in system preferences, shortcut keys to switch to a space, and once done, launch applications you want to.
To simulate action keys in Applescript, use system event "keystroke" instruction.
Easy: start these applications, one by one, in your "chosen" space, click on and hold Dock's icon, move cursor to "Options" (below), select this one (of three) options:
– Current desktop (or: this desktop, or similar)
… which from now on will always open THIS application in THIS space.
There is no programmatic way in AppleScript to instruct your Mac to switch spaces/workspaces or even to return the identity (number) of the current desktop.
Switching may happen, though, if the relevant option in System Preferences, Mission Control, is set.
(Indirectly, comparing a desktop "picture" to a user-defined list empowers a script to get its "number".)
For my workflow, I like to have multiple desktops. One for a browser, another for some sort of editor and another for a full screen terminal.
When I connect an external monitor though. It doesn't work quite how I would like.
If I place a window on my external monitor (like my music player or something). Then I switch desktops to view my editor. My external monitor also changes desktops.
Also if I use expose, My external monitor also goes into expose mode.
Kinda annoying.
Is there anyway (possibly using 3rd party tools). To keep the two monitors seperate an have two dedicated work areas/desktops?
I have this same issue. I like to keep different IDE's open on each desktop and use my external monitor as a 'common' desktop to hold reference material, etc.
I have been able to simulate it by setting certain applications to 'All desktops' but it would be great if it was window based and automatic. That way one could drag a window to the external monitor and have it stick to all desktops and drag it back and have it stick to the current desktop.
In a fairly graphics intsensive application the requirements state that it should default to full screen mode even though the application is running under Windows. I know many games do this but I find it annoying. The default IMO should be to open in a window rather than full screen mode. I am proposing the first time the user runs the application they should select the default behavior. Am I wrong?
I think the annoyance-factor depends a lot on what the application tries to do.
If it is some utility that I might start while working in 5 different applications and it forces its fullscreen-ness on my, then I'd get highly annoyed.
If it is a specialized application that helps me with the entire workflow of a given task (so that I never or rarely need any other apps open at the same time), then fullscreen might actually be a valid default.
Whatever you do, just make sure that toggling the startup behaviour is very discoverable. Because no matter which way you'll go, some of your users will disagree with your decision. And for them it should be very easy to change to their prefered way.
I would follow the requirement the first time the application is launched. I would also provide a simple way to switch from full screen to windowed, for instance by pressing ESC (and another way to go back to full screen). Then I would store the mode when quitting the application and restore this mode at next launch.
Before doing the opposite of what your requirements say, I'd have the requirements changed.
However, what about giving the user the choice at install time?
The window at first-start-up should default to the optimal size for the largest proportion of users. For a graphics-intensive full-featured app, that may very well be full screen.
As for individual user preferences for window size, it seems to me most users won’t know if they want full screen or not until after they’ve started to use the app and see how much screen space they need and how much they use the window in conjunction with other windows. Asking them which size they want at install or first-start-up could thus be annoying and even confusing. It’s better to put such a setting under Options/Preferences.
Perhaps the best thing to do is save the window status on exit. Users who like it non-maximized thus only have to non-maximize it (and size it) once and then forget about it. The only consideration is to have some way to reset the window to the default (e.g., Window > Standard Size menu item) for novice users who accidentally resize or reposition the window to something bizarre and don’t know how to get it back. Alternatively, you could have a Window > Keep Sizes and Positions menu item for users to explicitly save the window status across sessions.
Go back to the requirements writers and ask them if they have considered non-traditional monitor setups, such as:
30" or larger monitor. Do you really want your app hogging up all the screen real-estate?
Multiple monitors. Which monitor will you run on? Can the user move your app from one monitor to another? Can your app span more than one monitor?
Virtual desktops. Can the user move your app from one desktop to another? Can they switch desktops while your app is running? Can your app span more than one desktop?
Such setups are increasingly common, especially large monitors. IMO, full-screen mode (the default for many older Windows apps) is becoming less and less useful.
The problem with presenting the user with the option of initially selecting fullscreen / vs windows is that they haven't used the software yet. How can they make a decision on which is better for them, without experience?
I would run the app in whichever mode provided the best user experience and then offer an option to change it both in the Preferences and though a hint while starting up the application for the 2nd time.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Even though MDI is considered harmful, several applications (even MS Office, Adobe apps) still use it either in its pure form or some as a hybrid with a tabbed/IDE-like interface.
Is an MDI interface still appropriate for some applications?
I'm thinking of an application where one typically works with several documents at one time, and often wants to have multiple documents side to view or copy/paste between them.
An example would be Origin, where one has multiple worksheet and graph windows in a project; a tabbed or IDE-like interface would be much more inconvenient with a lot of switching back and forth.
On the mac, it's natural and convenient for an application to have multiple top-level windows to solve this, what is the preferred way in Windows if one doesn't use MDI?
The disadvantages of MDI are the following:
It generally requires the user to learn and understand a more complicate set of window relations.
Many simple actions can require a two-step process. For example, bringing a desired window to the foreground can require that the user first brings the container window forward then bring the right primary window in the container window forward. Resizing or maximizing a window can mean first adjusting the container window then the primary window within.
If multiple container windows are open, the user can forget which one has the desired primary window, requiring a tedious search.
Users are easily confused by the dual ways to maximize, iconify, layer, and close a window. For example they may close the entire app rather than a window within the container window. Or they may “lose” a window because they iconified it within the container window without realizing it.
The user is limited in the sizes and positions his or her windows can assume. Suppose I want to look simultaneously at 3 windows of one app and 1 from another app. With SDI, I can have each window take a quadrant of the screen, but I can’t do that with MDI. What if I want one window in the MDI to be large and the other small? I have to make the container window large to accommodate the large window (where it occludes the windows of other apps), but that wastes space when looking at the child.
Note that all of these disadvantages apply to tabbed document interfaces (TDI) too, with tabbed interfaces having the additional disadvantage that the user can’t look at two documents in the same container window side by side. Tabs also add clutter and consume real estate in your windows. However, overall TDI tend to be less problematic than MDI, so they might be preferred for special cases (read on)
In summary, it hard to think of any situation to use MDI. It’s no better than an SDI while adding more complexity and navigation overhead, and working poorly with the windows of other apps.
There’s no reason an app can’t have multiple top-level SDI windows. Even with an app like Origin, I don’t see a problem with a project being spread across multiple SDI windows as long as the project is well identified in each window. SDI also allows different kinds of windows (e.g., graph vs worksheet) to have different menus and toolbars, rather than hiding or disabling items depending on the active window (the former is confusing, and the latter wastes space).
SDI gives your users the more flexibility over either MDI or TDI. Users can overlap or maximize the windows, and use the taskbar/dock as a de facto tab interface. Users can alternatively resize and reposition the windows so they can look at multiple at once. Each window can be sized independently to optimize screen space. Whatever advantages an MDI or TDI may have, you may be able augment SDI to have those advantages too (e.g., provide a thumbnailed menu that makes switching among windows faster than using the taskbar and comparable to selecting tabs, or provide a control that iconifies all windows of an app with one click).
Unless you have compelling reasons to use a TDI, go SDI to allow this flexibility. Compelling reasons include some subset of the following:
Each tab is used for unrelated high-order tasks and user will not be switching among tabs frequently or comparing information across tabs.
You’re working with very low-end users who are ignorant of or confused by the taskbar/dock and multiple windows, and don’t know how to resize windows (it seems compelling tab imagery works better than the taskbar for such users).
You anticipate there’re typically be a large set of tabs (e.g., 4 or more) and you can control their display in a manner more effectively for the task than the OS can if they were SDI windows on the taskbar/dock (e.g., with regard to order and labeling).
With SDI, you’re having problems with users confusing the toolbars or palettes of inactive windows with active windows.
Tabs are fixed in number and permanently open (e.g., when each tab is a different component of the same data object). The user is not saddled with trying to distinguish between closing a tab and closing the entire window; figuring out the window to navigate to is not an issue because all windows have the same tabs.
There is really only one way to properly arrange the data for task, with no variation among users or what they actually use the app for. You might as well set it up for the user with a combination of tabs and master-detail panes and rather than relying on the user to arrange and size SDI windows right.
In summary, given your users’ abilities, app complexity, and task structure, if your app can manage the content display better than the user/OS, use TDI, otherwise use SDI.
Note that the examples you used (MS Office and Adobe applications) are big programs and have lots of features. Users will be dealing with that program, and only that program for much of the program's lifetime.
Newer versions of MS Office (2007) and Adobe Photoshop (CS4) use multiple windows and tabs, respectively.
Note that with Windows 7, MDI's will probably lose popularity even more because of the extra power of tabs given by Microsoft's API's (although you needn't strictly use tabs -- MDI windows could work, but would be more confusing for the user than usual).
The old-style MDI (where to switch between documents, you had to go through the Windows menu) was annoying. The newer MDI (like tabs in Opera and Mozilla) make switching between documents very easy and seem to have been accepted well. They also don't clutter your taskbar as happens if you had more than one document open in something without MDI.
The main advantage of MDI is when you want to keep track of two or more windows at the same time, and those windows need to be grouped together. For example, there's a running process in one window, but you need to work on another window, MDI would be the most ideal.
I agree with slavy13 (old-MDI = bad, new-MDI = much better). But don't use programs like Microsoft Excel as your model. Ick! You get one window on your desktop, regardless of how many spreadsheets you have open (which may or may not be your preference.) But you get one taskbar icon for each and every document you have open. And your Alt+Tab window similarly has one icon for each document you have open. Plus, there is an additional icon in there just for "Excel" which takes you to whichever document happens to be "current". So yeah, do your MDI like Mozilla. Or at least give your users the option of switching to the cleaner style.
To more succinctly answer your question, I feel the answer is yes, MDI is still appropriate in some instances. But, in all things, moderation is the key.
It appears that multiple top-level windows is the way to go. As for whether there should be one global app instance or one per document is up to you I think. It's not visible to the user.
Only one benefit for MDI:
Programs that use large amounts of resources, such as Adobe Photoshop, often have an MDI due to the prohibitive cost of running more than one instance at a time.
But you shouldn't develop programs that drain huge amounts of resources to start with.
One advantage I can see for MDI occurs if a lot of screen real estate is going to be used for stuff that's shared among many windows. It may be more logical to have such material at the top or side of the enclosing window than to have it repeated in each SDI window, or have it appear in a window entirely separate from the SDI windows. For example, a chat program might have a status pane and a control pane. Having those be somewhat tied visually tied to the chat windows might be better than having them as standalone windows.