On 31 October 2011 20:31, Connor Lane Smith <c...@lubutu.com> wrote: > On 31 October 2011 20:28, Connor Lane Smith <c...@lubutu.com> wrote: >> Also, having special >> 'set' bindings instead of the simple I-to-Increase, D-to-Decrease, is >> far harder to remember. > > An afterthought: if it's the number of bound keys which is worrying > you, why not make, e.g., Mod-n increase nmaster, and Mod-Shift-n > decrease nmaster?
It is not the number of bound keys that is worrying me. It is the directness of the interaction with the WM that worries me. SInce manipulating nmaster or mfact is indeed layout specific, I conclude this should belong to setting a particular layout function. We identified the main argument for this approach already: user do tend to stick to very few layout variations -- like nmaster being only 1 or 2, or having a 2 column master area. Also not having dynamic manipulators for nmaster/mfact (by default), would increase the clarity of the user interface a bit, as manipulating the layout requires setting a layout function. And the user will end up with probably up to 5 favorit layout functions and this fits very well into the way we apply layouts that do not depent on nmaster or mfact variables as well. Cheers, Anselm
