vitor Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 I seem to remember this being briefly discussed but I’m not finding it on a preliminary search (not sure even if it was a full topic or a post), so here it is in greater detail. Laying out nodes in a workflow is for me a pain point in Alfred. Perhaps I’m the oddball, here, but I like to have everything extremely clear. Case in point, WatchList:In case you’re wondering, yes, every row has the exact same distance from the others. Again, maybe I’m taking this to an extreme, but when a workflow reaches that degree of complexity, organisation becomes imperative. It is that organisation that makes it easier to add a node later on, but it also makes it a bore if that node is added to one of the earlier options, since bringing everything has to be made with care.I also loathe when I see something like this:That is not an exaggeration, I’ve found workflows exactly like that — only two nodes, both with some distance from the top, and not even aligned with each other. I wouldn’t blame you if you questioned the quality of the code inside.Yes, some workflows are hard to keep to a grid in a good way, if for example multiple nodes link to multiple others (instead of a more one-to-one relation), but I feel something could be worked here, still. I’d like to have either: Auto-layout option: press something, and Alfred auto-arranges everything itself. This is a bit more complex — decisions would have to be opinionated, and could lead to more work (bug reports to things not being laid-out accurately) in the future. Snapping: currently, when Alfred makes a new node, it is always in a certain position relative to the preceding one. However, we drag them in small increments. What if we had an option (say ⇧+drag, or even using the arrow keys, since they currently do nothing) that would nudge nodes up an down on this predefined grid? Second option should be way easier to accomplish, and there’s little room for messing up. We’d still be arranging everything ourselves, but the most obsessive amongst us would have a way better time doing so, and perhaps even the less obsessed would join in. Alan He 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now