Why can't I remove Name column?

[gdhm]

Why can't I deselect (the Greyed out) "Name" column.
I ask because if I select (as I always do) to display "Full Path", Date and Size columns then the "Name" column is superfluous as the file name is included in the "Full Path" column. Consequently space is wasted which stops me see longer paths or if I partially hide the Name column then display looks messy as it cannot be totally hidden. .

IF for some reason the "Name" column is essential, could we then have an extra column option namely "Full Path (excluding file name"

I apologize if my question is silly. I searched previous questions and the only answer I could find is covered when using "Full Path" (which includes file names).
Many thanks

[gdhm]

Please may I "bump" this as no reply to date and newer topics are being answered and I am worried it may be overlooked.
Is it possible and are you willing to allow hiding of the name column in a future version release.
Many thanks

[Zenju]

The idea was that "Name" would be a column that every user always needs, while "full path" would be needed only for very specific tasks like "copy and paste the list of full paths for external use".

Why do you prefer the "full path" although "Name + Relative folder" is shorter?

Simply allowing to hide the "Name" column is not my preferred solution for the yet-to-be-determined problem.

[gdhm]

Hi Zenju :)

Thanks for your reply

Please forgive me If I inferred the currently mandatory "Name" column is a problem needing to be fixed. That was not my intention. I am merely raising to you attention a circumstance where those who wish to use the FULL PATH option (rather than Relative Path) do not need the Name column, as the file name in already included in the full Path shown.

All I intended to request was would you be willing to allow Users the option to select or Hide the Name column as you have currently allowed for others columns. Currently this cannot be done as the Name column selection/deselection is greyed out.

If not greyed out each can chose completely what EACH FFS S User wants and needs or do not want for their own situation. In my case I would like Just 3 columns displayed "Full Path", "Date" and "Size". I do appreciate the Name column shows a small icon to help with identification but that is not important for me and I'd much sooner have more display width available for my Full path by being able to hide the "Name" column

I hope I have explained clearly.

Regarding you asking why I am not choosing to use Relative Path I advise the following:
My PC is a home PC some file paths with file names are are very long over 200 to 245). Some in fact are caused by Firefox and MS).
I currently have 15 scenarios I run every day. Each has been carefully chosen by me to group in orders that help me notice silly errors or issues made after I compare but before AI sync with FFS ( I always do manual Sync not scheduled as I like to be able to watch for unexpected issues files). In a few of these groups files are are NOT all from the same partitions "even drives) or or same base folders. When I use "Relative Path" I cannot see the drive or base folder that the files are in or being copied to. This I consider leaves me more likely not notice some error prior to syncing with FFS. Consequently I only use "Full path" and never "Relative Path" with "Name".
Now as that decision has been made as best FOR ME the file name is already included in "Full Path" so not currently being able to hide the Name column means a duplication of file name and less visible Full path width .

IF my Full paths were all reasonably short then the Name column would just be (for me) an unnecessary extra column but as i said I have MANY long paths and many long file names (for easy identification), so I would very much like the option to hide the "Name" column Zenju so I can see more of the Full Paths (or all).

Once again I hope I have explained clearly and hope you are agreeable to allowing the option to select/unselect the "Name" column in a future FFS release.

Many thanks

[Zenju]

Why do you prefer "Full path" over "Base folder + Relative folder + Name"?
I think the problem is that this would be too much column management and you would be right. What could be possible refinements? Some brain storming:

1. Combine "Base folder + Relative folder" => User still needs 2 columns including "Name". Down-side: Non-orthogonal with regards to "Full path".
2. Add file icon to the left/right side of "Full Path"
3. Radio button to quickly switch between two views, e.g. "Full Path" and "Relative folder + Name" (Not allowing the user to simply hide the "Name" column is a design statement about this column's importance. The radio button then says that those two columns are equivalent.
4. Visual alternative to 2:

hier.PNG (49.42 KiB) Viewed 2617 times

[gdhm]

Hi Zenju :)

I really appreciate you interest, questions and offered alternatives.
I agree with you that "Base folder + Relative folder + Name" produces the same path information. However with certain comparisons using that takes up more width than just Full path" ALONE.

You can see what I mean in image below Zenju where you can see "Full path" requires LESS width as it does not have to allow for wider relative paths or wider Names as it strips out spaces for each item, whereas "Base folder + Relative folder + Name" needs to have EACH of their widths set for a reasonable MAJORITY of the wider entries in their respective columns

FFS (07-05-16).jpg (134.43 KiB) Viewed 2600 times

I hope my example shows the saving clearly of "Full path" without Name column being mandatory.
Your visual of 2 looks good (I personally am not bothered with the icons BUT assume other are). My only refinement to it would be a "\" at end of path before icon and file name.
but of course, I would still want to deselect relative path (which I can) AND Name (which I currently cannot)

Kind regards and thanks for your time and consideration
Dave

[Zenju]

Here's the redesign following the GUI mockup above. Hopefully no important scenarios are broken; this should be a general improvement:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/k2w3po4h9370l42/FreeFileSync_8.2_beta_Windows_Setup.exe

[gdhm]

Here's the redesign following the GUI mockup above. Hopefully nothing important was broken; this should be a general improvement:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/k2w3po4h9370l42/FreeFileSync_8.2_beta_Windows_Setup.exe

Wow :) for me wonderful. If there are no unexpected side effects PERFECT for me.

My only observation is that the options of icon sizes, other than small, seem non essential and whilst Medium may be attractive to some as it separates entries more. Large is way too big (on my monitor anyway)

I love the option to have or not have icons :)

What I see (Left column) on my 1920 x 1080 resolution Monitor having chosen Date, Size, Full Path with Icons on.

Small icons

Small icons (08-05-2016).jpg (141.74 KiB) Viewed 2588 times

Medium icons

Medium icons (08-05-2016).jpg (77.47 KiB) Viewed 2588 times

Large icons:

large icons (08-05-2016).jpg (39.97 KiB) Viewed 2588 times

Thanks ever so much Zenju :)

Dave

[Zenju]

The medium and large icon sizes generate thumbnail images, a feature intended for users sync'ing their photos.

So far I see two minor design drawbacks:
1. since "relative folder" and "name" columns are replaced by a single unified column, there is one less sort variant available at a time.
2. "relative folder" was independent from an item existing on one side or not, so it was sufficient to show this column on the left side only. With the new design having "Relative path" on the left side and "Name" on the other is a loss of information if an item on the left side is missing.

[gdhm]

Hi Zenju :)

Thanks for logic with Medium and Large Icons.
With regard to 2, I cannot comment as not something I use.
With regard to 3, I always match Left and Right columns so once again I cannot comment but I do understand many Users may not (depending on their needs)

Obviously you must base your Development and new Releases on the needs of the majority, correct logic and needs of bigger non home PC users.

IF you decide to stay with current GUI options (rather than the Beta test version) may I ask whether there is any drawback oing bakc to my original request to un-grey the "Name" column so those who wish to NOT display the "Name" column, can if they so wish (as I would).

I appreciate you originally advised in this Topic, that it is greyed out because "The idea was that "Name" would be a column that every user always needs" however with the name of the file and extension, always shown in "Full Path "in the current Release, then please forgive me for enquiring why the "Name" column is a column everybody needs (if some like me always displays "Full Path").
I recognize with the current Release if Users like/need the icon then Full path does not show that).

May I ask if there Is fundamental issue in allowing Users to deselect the "Name" column from being displayed if they so wish. If not, then wouldn't it be an extra option available to users, rather than an issue?

Kind Regards
Dave

[Zenju]

The changes in the beta above will be in the next official release.

[gdhm]

The changes in the beta above will be in the next official release.

Thanks ever so much Zenju :)

[Giangi]

The changes in the beta above will be in the next official release.

Please let the user decide, I have just upgraded to v8.2 and I had to rebuild the layout I want (unfortunately the <Perspective4> item has not been migrated to the new format...)
Now I just cannot recreate my layout: I would like to have both the "name" and "relative folder" as before!
Current choices aren't fitting my needs:

- relative path is too long
- full path is extremely long
- item name is too short

Up to v8.1 I showed: Name, Size, Date, Relative folder and this is perfect for a quick look (the Name is enough) or I just have to scroll right to look at the Relative folder.

On v8.2 we can have only one "name" field between the three above, I think that even not marking them as mutually exclusive can be a solution...

Thank you

[filesyncfan3]

Hello everyone,

it's been a while since the last reply on this topic but i have to agree with Giangi here. I've used v8.1 for a long time and was thinking it's time to upgrade to v9.4. I realized that something seemed to be odd and in the end I found that it was the Name column missing. Since Giangi mentioned it was introduce in v8.2, were the changelog says "Unified item path representation on main grid", it seems that I will stay on v.8.1 forever.

You really changed the design because of one Person on the forums that didnt like it? For me it was perfect like that. I don't understand why programmers always have to get rid of certain features instead of adding options.
It is just as Giangi says with his 3 points. Certain paths are too long so the file name gets cut out. But the file name is the most important part for me to have a good look on what is changing.
I could widen the column of course so it doesnt get cut out, but when I do that there is no horizontal scroll-bar appearing like in some of the screenshots above. And it wouldnt be as user-friendly to horizontal scroll all the time, so I wouldnt use it since i dont have the highest resolution and biggest monitor, but i want to know anyway:

Is there a horizontal scroll-bar at all in FFS?
Is there a way to get the name column back in the versions from v8.2 upwards?
Are you planning on bringing it back in future releases?

If not I will stay on this version, which has anything I need right now anyway. Awesome program. Thanks for answers in advance.