Thank you @mebeingken - I had this turned on for V3, just didn’t cross my mind to check to see if was auto-enabled in 4!.
Looking at the comments about the new design reducing productivity, it seems many are using the mouse too much, and resizing the panels as they work - something I have seen devs on my team do too. People are just not very open to learning & using shortcuts.
The biggest productivity gain I see is to be able to just have 2-3 SA open, along with 2-3 pages that I am working on and just switch between tabs (Ctrl+Tab) without having to keep opening and closing the SA panel on the left.
I don’t see a situation where anyone needs to have all the pages of the project open in tabs and then also the SAs. I could be wrong, but a workflow like that is a nightmare for me.
Having an option in the Wappler settings to hide the properties panel would be great.
This is certainly something to think about in the tabbed design. Becuase working on maximised query builder UI is also something that is important too.
Don’t have any ideas for the UI yet, but getting rid of the modal would definitely be a good move.
@George One more suggestion: please make Wappler remember the panel sizes! Its a huge productivity killer in the current version. Remembering the size universally would also work if per project is not an option.
1 Like
Which panels do you mean exactly? Most already save their sizes.
I just want to clarify why I’m advocating so much. It’s not that I have an interest, but I have.
It’s just that minorities are usually very vocal and noisy so someone has to compensate on the other side.
All in all the poll results are clear and it’s not like the sample is small AND the results are tied.
Only 4% don’t want to change.
It’s clear that.
Even if we receive heavy fire from the losing guys.
Stay strong @George
Old panel.
1 Like
For those fearing a “tab hell”, a good solution might be, what Chrome have done with their tab groups.
We might consider a similar solution 
Grouping tabs per editor type.
1 Like
I think we had a long discussion about the existing two column setup of the server action panel, where you could not make it remember the size of the left column when left panel is open to a certain width.
The solution you proposed was to expand the left panel more, but that ate into the open page, so I am living with adjusting the left column since then.
I am hoping that will no longer be an issue since it will be all the more important since the tab that opens up will also have a left column of steps and a right column of properties, and probably more column/areas for the builders.
Very true. But now I’ve seen it in action, I would vote differently.
I like the new concept but I also miss the old ways so I continue to request we get both options.
1 Like
For me it’s the combination of not being able to see the API steps AND the HTML page at the same time (@JonL has promised there’s a solution coming for that 
) and also the need to close tabs each time (I believe there’s a solution to that coming, too).
I spend most of my time with SC open on the left and one page open on the right and working between the two so ultimately would like that to still be possible.
I’ve got into the habit of only having one page open at a time because of the long-running bug where you type and it appears in another tab. I know that’s fixed now but I got into the habit way too much!
Is there any reason the entire left panel couldn’t be tab control my idea is let’s use actions as a example one click it opens without the tabs showing at the top, when you edit the action a blue dot appears in the left navigation area when saving this is back to normal this would be for everything git databases pages everything if possible. Then have some save and close options on actions pages etc etc save and close, save, close without saving
Also for easy access to the open tabs a new active tabs area where you can also choose to split section the open tabs
1 Like
Not only this quote, but the whole post is a great opinion manipulation. Jon, have you considered going into politics?
I’m not a fan of minorities, and I’m not someone who defends them. I mean something else. It seems to me that categorical statements in complex issues are obviously a mistake.
If you go back to the quote. It seems to me that the minorities who voted against it are not that loud, they did not say anything at all on this topic. So we don’t even know their point of view on this issue.All those who unsubscribed here, voted for, but before the new functionality was clearly demonstrated. After the demonstration, apparently, opinions were divided. So your hypothesis of a united front is not correct.
You wrote about the tunnel vision of some of us. But isn’t the denial of third-party approaches part of the tunnel vision? I think you’re a little confused about this.
Returning to the facts and objective things. For me, there are only two objective criteria for UI/UX quality:
- Intuitive clarity. The better the interface is implemented in this regard, the less time it takes to start using it for a new user.
- Efficiency. Very easily measured in time saved on routine work.
Nothing else matters. The more time the interface saves, the better it is designed.
You suggest removing the old functionality. What efficiency does this give?
Look, I collapsed the old functionality, and it became a small panel with a height of 40px:
What objective value is there in the fact that it will disappear for you?
For my part, I can clearly formulate the loss and it is objective: - in some routine processes (I emphasize not in all) I’ll spend a lot more time without the old functionality. This is objective and it can be measured.
I voted for tabs. And my vote was still in favor. They will definitely make the work more efficient and I am always in favor of the Wappler expanding its functionality. But I just don’t see the point of giving up the old functionality, because this giving up is objectively harmful, but does not give any profit from my point of view.
Not to me as I already explained in some posts above. I don’t care if it stays collapsed. It’s still bad UX to mix design patterns. And it will be a nightmare for new users and for learning materials as also explained above.
You are thinking in your workflow. I’m thinking in mine and new users’ one.
How will you explain this to a new user?
It seems to me extremely rare that duplication of functionality in the interface leads to a nightmare. In such cases, users chose what suits them best. What usually leads to a nightmare is what is missing, but what is very necessary.
To answer your question, the explanation is extremely simple. To description and explanation of the functionality that already exists, add descriptions of the new functionality that will be based on the tab. The user will choose the most suitable option for their purposes.
I find having the Server Side stuff on the left and Client Side stuff on the right. It makes sense. So mixing the tabs where they contain both might make it harder for new users.
For this reason, I still think App Flows should be on the right next to App Structure… but that’s probably another conversation
That’s a workaround and still bad UX because you are mixing design patterns. You are forcing new users to read documentation because you have a bad UX(unintuitive in this case).
The user will choose the most suitable option for their purposes.
This is not always good. And in this case I believe it’s not. Sometimes things are done by design.
The new user will have to read the documentation anyway, otherwise they won’t be able to start working. It doesn’t matter how the functionality is implemented. So reading the documentation is not a consequence of poor UX.
Also I don’t agree that mixing the design in this particular case is a bad UX. My opinion is based on the fact that in this particular case, the two design patterns do not duplicate each other completely, but expand the functionality.
I don’t see an option for a more efficient implementation of quick access to view the content of a server action and edit it than the way it is implemented now in Wappler 3. Tabs in Wappler 4 give extreme efficiency when working meticulously on specific server actions. Therefore, my opinion is that the combination of the Wappler 3 and Wappler 4 approach is an extension of the functionality, but not its mixing.
1 Like
We will have to settle down on agreeing to disagree.
1 Like
So be it. 
Cheers! 
1 Like
Sorry Jon to disagree but the only one who doesn’t stop making noise is you. If you look at the number of responses you are ahead of the curve, you might have to realize that underestimating what the other says by saying things like “tunnel vision” “noisy minorities” only makes you look like someone who lacks self-confidence. If I were you and fortunately I am not, I would try to speak with more respect to those of us who have a different opinion on this subject. This is not about win or lose. It cristal clear u want this like a baby want a candy! Just stop crying about it hahah. If wappler is going to be more efficient good for all of us and not only for 20 votes who litterally are less than the 5% of the actual wappler users.
I personally tried that feature in chrome only once, but on a day-to-day basis I don’t use it, because it would create more work, having to organize the tabs into groups. I sincerely believe that something that has been working very well until now is getting complicated. As some have already said, I think it would be best to leave both options, since in small monitors, it is better to have a full tab open but in large monitors productivity and efficiency are lost. I think that one of the points in favor of Wappler is to be able to carry out programs more quickly and efficiently, opening, grouping and closing tabs only slows down the workflow.
1 Like