After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 45659 - icon and list views should share the same sort order
icon and list views should share the same sort order
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: Views: All
2.11.x
Other All
: Normal minor
: future
Assigned To: Nautilus Maintainers
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2001-01-15 20:54 UTC by Aaron Brick
Modified: 2021-06-18 15:49 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.11/2.12


Attachments
Unified solution to sort criteria (2.04 MB, application/pdf)
2017-06-09 19:45 UTC, C.M.Rogers
Details
Unified solution to sort criteria: buttons/icons versions (3.11 MB, application/pdf)
2017-06-09 19:48 UTC, C.M.Rogers
Details

Description Aaron Brick 2001-09-10 00:51:54 UTC
files in icon view can be "laid out" according to certain characteristics, just
as list view files can be sorted by clicking on the attribute's column header.
since the two views can be sorted in the same ways, sorting should remain in
effect across switches between list and icon view (as they do when one returns
to the original sorted view).

* REPRODUCIBLE: Always

* STEPS TO REPRODUCE:

view /bin as a list; sort it by filesize; switch to icon view.


* ACTUAL RESULTS:

 the files appeared alphabetically ordered.


* EXPECTED RESULTS:

  they should have remained sorted by size.


a corrollary to this bug would be the inclusion of the "lay out items" option in
the list view. its funcitonality would be synonymous with clicking on the column
headings. this would reinforce the connection between the two different sorting
methods in the UI.



------- Additional Comments From darin@bentspoon.com 2001-01-15 16:20:58 ----

We considered having a single sort shared by both views and decided not to do it
that way. Maybe we should reconsider that some day.



------- Additional Comments From sullivan@eazel.com 2001-03-13 10:14:26 ----

I don't remember why we kept the sort orders separate. My first impulse now is
that they should be the same, as aaron suggests.

Arlo, Andy: Any opinions here?



------- Additional Comments From eli@eazel.com 2001-03-26 11:11:28 ----

QA Assigning to self.



------- Bug moved to this database by unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org 2001-09-09 20:51 -------
Comment 1 John Fleck 2002-01-05 04:24:29 UTC
Changing to "old" target milestone for all bugs laying around with no milestone set.
Comment 2 Luis Villa 2004-02-19 16:03:31 UTC
This is still the case in HEAD. Updating and marking it a minor bug,
since it is a usability/sanity problem and not an enhancement.
Comment 3 Carlos Romero 2004-02-19 16:18:58 UTC
nautilus 2.5.7:
listing order is only saved for the particular view, a per window
variable that tracks sorting would feel natural
Comment 4 Christian Neumair 2005-07-30 12:51:37 UTC
Two questions I still haven't heard a convincing answer to:

- how to do map manual layout to the list view?
- what to do if the sort criterion doesn't have any associated visible list view
column?
Comment 5 Calum Benson 2005-08-08 16:59:56 UTC
Yeah, I guess there's a good reason why OSX (and Windows, IIRC) keeps the sort
order separately for each view :)

I guess, in theory, you could map a manual icon view to a list view by looking
at the icon view and listing the icons from top to bottom, left to right (locale
dependent?).  In other words, list them in the order you might expect to Tab
through them in the icon view (if that's what Tab actually did in the icon
view), or to Tab through controls in a dialog if they were laid out the same
way.  I'm not sure it actually makes any sort of usability sense to bother doing
that, though.  (Aside: on OSX icon view, Tab continues to cycle through icons
alphabetically regardless of how you lay them out manually, so they don't even
make that effort... I'd guess for accessibility reasons.)

As to your second question: I can't think of any solution at all :)  I think
this has to be verging on a WONTFIX, personally.
Comment 6 Christian Neumair 2005-08-08 18:40:49 UTC
Calum: So "Manually" would effectively be "Sort by Name" in list view.
Considering that we have a submenu like

View->Arrange Items
"Manual Layout"
"Sort by Name"
"Sort by Size"
"Sort by Type"
"Sort by Modification Date"
"Sort by Emblems"

how would you suggest that we denote that we effectively sort by name in list
view although manual layout is selected?

a) grey out the "Manual Layout" item but have it selected. Disadvantage: It's
not obvious that we sort by name.
b) grey out manual icon and select "name" icon. Disadvantage: It's not obvious
that for the Icon view, we still sort manually
c) grey out manual and name items but select name item. Would be quiet fishy,
since we allow to select the name item after the user switched to another item.
I've actually a proposal for number 2: We could simply sort by the specified
criterion without displaying any sort indicator at all.
Comment 7 Calum Benson 2005-08-09 15:00:20 UTC
> Calum: So "Manually" would effectively be "Sort by Name" in list view.

Hmm, I'm not sure that's what I meant, but let me think about it! Can you
explain how you get to that conclusion, so I can work out whether we're talking
about the same thing? :)

> how would you suggest that we denote that we effectively sort by name in list
> view although manual layout is selected?

Well, again theoretically, you could actually have a 'real' manual layout mode
in List View, too... allowing you to rearrange the list as you like, by dragging
and dropping.  The problem again is how that would map to a 2D icon view when
you switched back... you could perhaps just do the 2D->1D thing in reverse, i.e.
map the new linear order onto the previous manual icon view positions, but I
can't really imagine why you'd want to.

> I've actually a proposal for number 2: We could simply sort by the specified
> criterion without displaying any sort indicator at all.

Yes, that would work I suppose.  I was thinking there might then be an issue
around getting back to this state after you'd clicked on a heading to sort by
something else, but the HIG actually suggests how to do this so it's probably
not an issue.
Comment 8 Christian Neumair 2005-08-09 16:43:44 UTC
> Can you explain how you get to that conclusion, so I can work out whether
we're talking about the same thing? :)

"In other words, list them in the order you might expect to Tab through them in
the icon view". The icon view internally uses the name of the displayed icons in
manual layout mode. But you don't seem to know this, so you obviously didn't
refer to it ;).

> I was thinking there might then be an issue around getting back to this state
after you'd clicked on a heading to sort by something else

the user still has the "View" menu, which should list all available criterions.
Comment 9 Carlos Soriano 2015-02-26 15:31:44 UTC
Marking as ui review, since the UI if we want this is not clear.
Comment 10 Carlos Garnacho 2015-02-26 16:31:22 UTC
What I suggested in #gnome-hackers is:

1) Always respect the last sorting choice in both views
2) If the sorting option can't be represented in the current view, show the sorting options inconsistent, either as per gtk_toggle_button_set_inconsistent() in the popover radio buttons, or unsetting sort triangles in treeview column headers.
Comment 11 Cosimo Cecchi 2015-02-26 17:54:12 UTC
NEEDINFO is not needed for ui-review
Comment 12 C.M.Rogers 2017-06-09 19:45:51 UTC
Created attachment 353480 [details]
Unified solution to sort criteria

This is one solution to the problem. The sort criteria are given for example only, to show that this can work for any given sort criteria.
Comment 13 C.M.Rogers 2017-06-09 19:48:56 UTC
Created attachment 353481 [details]
Unified solution to sort criteria: buttons/icons versions

This version is like the previous, only based on icons/buttons for each sort type, and solves several of the problems listed in the previous pdf document.
Comment 14 André Klapper 2021-06-18 15:49:34 UTC
GNOME is going to shut down bugzilla.gnome.org in favor of gitlab.gnome.org.
As part of that, we are mass-closing older open tickets in bugzilla.gnome.org
which have not seen updates for a longer time (resources are unfortunately
quite limited so not every ticket can get handled).

If you can still reproduce the situation described in this ticket in a recent
and supported software version of Files (nautilus), then please follow
  https://wiki.gnome.org/GettingInTouch/BugReportingGuidelines
and create a new ticket at
  https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/nautilus/-/issues/

Thank you for your understanding and your help.