an idea for auto configuration

[mouser]

someone brought up the issue of automatically organizing their start menu and asked if launchbar commander might be able to help with this.

there is no functionality for this currently, but i was thinking about an idea, where we could make a dock which specified which programs go where and arrange them into groups with nice icons, and set it up for all applications we know about, and then provide this sample dock and a special function where a person could say "search my machine and enable all found applications"

so the idea would be that a person first installs the program, they say, ok search my machine and create an automatic first launchbar.

and it would scan for all isntalled programs, and properly add a button in the right category in the sample launchbar dock hierarchy.  would be a great way to get people started with a nicely organized launchbar with several main categories, etc.

[jgpaiva]

I think that litestep also has a feature very similar to that, it's exetremelly useful.
That's the best way to provide a configuration which can allow the user to learn more.
Another possibility is having the app's first configuration to ask the user for the applications to use.
I.E., the first time the app runs, it asks you "is this your music player?" displaying the winamp's icon (or the other one found), and then, and below "if not, please browse HERE, or SKIP THIS STEP".
This is the way litestep does it.
I found it very useful, specially because some features can get hard to configure.

[CutTheRedWire]

I like using folders of shrotcuts.  They are universal.  LiteStep, BlackBox, SPU (ShortPopUp), and other launchers can read them as is.  Even the quicklaunch can do it.  It is a native GUI, I find.

I actually started collect single function executables to add functionality to the such menus.  Empty the recycle bin, open/close cd drawer, show/hide extentions, shutdown the compter... etc.  You can do a lot when you look around.

I took SPU to a new level in auto configuration though.  It has a variety of configurations that you set as parameters.  It got very extensive, so the author let you put them in a file (loadable by a parameter, heh).  I figured out a way to associate that file to the app.  Put the file in a folder, put a shortcut to it in a launcher, and instant menu.

I also recomend hue recoloring.  It makes a skin seem much more comeplete.


A comment on LiteStep: ya that is handy.  It was added with OTS 1 (open theme standard 1).  It had all the most common used apps listed.  This made it possible to create custom luanchers that most ppl would find useful.  Something like that is one way to go with the app, and it could easily read that part of OTS2 (it got updated) automatically.  I recomend a readable, configurable text file one way or another, so it can be edited by hand if need be.
---This app may not need this though.  LiteStep is so free-from, this was a solution to conform the chaos.  This app, being a single purpose luncher, shouldn't really need it.  Still, itcould be useful.

[tsaint]

I would like a launchbar to have as small and overhead as possible.

In the beginning tho, I'd really like to have "something" watching, so that when it noticed me starting up a program, it would record that fact and, if it hadn't been run before, ask me whether I wanted it added to LC, and where.

After a while, when the launch bar was pretty well populated, I'd prefer to rely on only manually adding menu items (as LC is now).
Thus I'd like to jettison the helper eventually - much easier I imagine, if LC and the helper were separate programs.

Why not a helper app to scour my h/d to populate LC in the first place? Because it would take longer to get rid of stuff I DIDNT want on LC if it added them automatically, and I'd get sick of saying yes/no if I were asked about every program I'd installed.

In a sense, running a second, helper, program sounds a bit inelegant, but so is the idea of boosters on the space shuttle, and that works.
tony

[mouser]

In a sense, running a second, helper, program sounds a bit inelegant, but so is the idea of boosters on the space shuttle, and that works.

lol.

[mouser]

tsaint your idea is interesting but it would require monitoring all launched applications forever, which is a waste of cpu.

my idea was to try to build a large universal menu structure (or allow people to build their own and share), and then have a command that would search your hard drive and find any programs you have installed from that hierarchy and link to them).

So for example it might look like this:
Utilities
+- Backup Tools
++--True Image
Text Editors
+-UltraEdit
+-Notepad
Graphics Tools
+- Big Graphics Editors
++- Photoshop

so a nice big well organized hierarchy with nice icons for menu headings.

Then you would run a command called "Find and link all"

And then it would scour your hard disk for installed programs that match the items in that hierarchical predefined menu.
Yes it would take a long time to do the first scan.

But afterwards the result would be a very nicely organized hierarchical toolbar/launcher with nice organized submenus, etc.

Sort of like an instant nice organization.

[tsaint]

It would only have to run for 2 weeks in my case ... if I havent used it by then I dont want it on my lean, mean LC bar. If I wanted EVERY bit of software to show in 1 place, I'd let the start menu grow like topsy and keep wading thru that.
Being able to dispense with the monitoring is why I suggested separating 2 functions - an initial getting set up function from the ongoing "doing what its designed for" function.
Is monitoring what program starts and comparing it with a list somewhere such a cpu/resource intensive thing anyway (at least short term)?

Then you would run a command called "Find and link all"

It's the "all" which worries me heaps - could you change it to "find and link all the ones you know I really want on the bar and leave out the 1000 other "just in case I ever want it" ones"

And then it would scour your hard disk for installed programs that match the items in that hierarchical predefined menu.
Yes it would take a long time to do the first scan.

Guess you know by now that scouring is the last thing I want

But afterwards the result would be a very nicely organized hierarchical toolbar/launcher with nice organized submenus, etc.
And at least in my case would be so humungously big I'd be quicker using start/run/....

I may have it all wrong (thats usually how it is with me) but I thought the best feature of a launch bar was to cut down on the clutter inherent in the start menu ... else why not use that? Usually I just want the <10 most frequently used programs for each category I set up (graphics,internet,system, file type stuff, etc etc)
tony

[mouser]

well it will definitely be optional, so if you dont want to use it no big deal.

and launchbar commander makes it very easy to uncheck or delete submenus, etc. so you could very easily in a coupld of clicks hide everything found so it would never display.

note also that launchbar commander makes it easy to add commands from the list of running processes, so it makes it easy to add an application you are currently using (i can make it easier too i suppose).

ALSO:
you can drag shortcuts from your start menu or from windows explorer onto the launch bar to add the commands.

[tsaint]

...note also that launchbar commander makes it easy to add commands from the list of running processes, so it makes it easy to add an application you are currently using (i can make it easier too i suppose).

Point taken. That feature is WONDERFUL - and it's very easy as is.


you can drag shortcuts from your start menu

my start menu is like the bottom of a bowl of my wife's laksa - never know what you'll find in there and looks pretty messy

[mouser]

here's a little tip:

did you know that you can drag items found in find and run robot onto launchbar commander (both launch bar docks and in config screen

[tsaint]

thanks, I'll try that.
tony

[jgpaiva]

I was talking to mouser on the irc channel about the auto-configuration, and i thought: how about lbc having community-updated groups?

I mean, who likes to configure stuff??
Why not have lists of categorized apps?

It'd work like this:
You could classify a node as self-updating.
Then, it'd check for new programs in the program files directory.
If there were some, it'd check the lists it is provided with, to find out the category of the program.
If there is no entry for that program, it'd ask for a category to be placed under.
Then, lbc would create a new icon for the app, under a menu with the name of the category it's in (if the menu doesn't exist already), and this menu would be placed on the self-updating node.

Now, the most interesting part. The category listings would be generated online, and people could update it with new categories and new apps. This listings would be available to lbc, that could have them locally, and request for updates, or be updated by the user.

[mouser]

jgpaiva that is exactly the kind of thing i was thinking in terms of people sharing their hierarchical categorization of apps, or else us helping to build such configurations (since their might be conflicts).