SUMMARY STEPS TO REPRODUCE 1. open a folder in Dolphin 2. click on a folder or file icon OBSERVED RESULT IF it's a folder, opens it in Dolphin If it's a file, opens it with the defaut application EXPECTED RESULT This is stupid. In EVERY other file manager, clicking on an item selects it. To open it, you double-click. That has been an established convention for very long, and a sensible one. Now, in order to select a single item you need to draw a rectangle around it as if you were to select several ones. This is obviously by design, but it's a wrong design decision and needs to be reverted. Now I guess there's a setting where I can change the behavior, then that's wonderful, but the default behavior should still be a sensible, intuitive one, that is, the conventional one. SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS Windows: macOS: Linux/KDE Plasma: (available in About System) KDE Plasma Version: KDE Frameworks Version: Qt Version: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
You can change this in System Settings > Workspace Behavior > Click behavior. Single-click by default is intentional for a variety of reasons. YOu can see the last big discussion we had about this here: https://phabricator.kde.org/T8187. I know it's not what you expect, and not what anyone else does, but that's what we've chosen for our default settings, for better or worse. FWIW I used to hate this too and immediately switched to the familiar behavior, but once I gave it a chance, I discovered that I really liked it. :)
> You can change this in System Settings > Workspace Behavior > Click behavior. I know, but the most sensible behavior should be the default. > last big discussion we had about this here: Interesting. The arguments in favour of double click are overwelmingly stronger than those in favour of single-click, yet you chose single click. > I know it's not what you expect, and not what anyone else does That's the definition of a right default: what anyone would expect. So you know this is a wrong default. From the linked discussion: > Advantages of status quo (single-click to open) > - Makes opening files and folders much easier for users with poor dexterity or mousing > skills Good point. However, that's a minority and therefore they should be the ones who go to Settings and change the behavior. We don't make huge fonts a default for the benefit of the visually impaired, or high-contrast black-and-white themes for color-blind people, do we? We make those options available to them to choose. > laptop trackpads That is the only single one point that is somewhat valid. Actually I avoid trackpads altogether and always bring a mouse wherever I bring my laptop, because trackpads are crap anyway. However, it is just one somewhat-valid argument vs many against. And not that great of a point either, because double-clicking on a trackpad (using the physical button) is not really that hard. > More intuitive; many users on other platforms have never fully understood when they need to double-click, and end up cringe-inducingly double-clicking everything "just to be safe." LOL I'd like to see some data backing up the "many users" claim. Yes I have seen such users. Those are people that don't know how to operate a computer at the most basic level. It's easy to understand when you need to click and when you need to double click. Because there are some people who are very clumsy with computers doesn't mean that something is not intuitive. It's not worth to make it ridiculously difficult to select things just because there is a minority of people who don't understand how double click works. > touchscreens in particular [...] > More consistent with mobile [...] Vastly more touch-friendly You are doing it backwards. You are trying to make the developer's life easier, not the user's. That reasoning is flawed. You are saying: - I have this behavior (the traditional one, double-click based) that works wonderfully with mice and non-touch screens - I transpose it literally to touch-screens in the most literal way, without putting any thought into it, click once => touch once; click twice => touch twice - This way, the resulting behavior on touch screen sucks => hence you deduce the starting behavior is not good. No, what is not good is your choice to map one click to one touch and N clicks to N touchs. Maybe you need to improve the way you map a mouse-based behavior to a touch-screen behavior. Think of right-clicks. Touch screens don't have a right button. Does that mean that we should eliminate right-click altogether? Fortunately, people who designed touchscreen-based interfaces in the early days weren't that stupid. They came up with the idea of mapping right-click to long press. The well-established convention on mouse-and-monitor interfaces works well, it's intuitive and doesn't need to be changed. What you need to figure out is how to map it to a touch screen. Obviously, the action of opening (the one that in the traditional world is accomplished with a double click), needs to be a single touch on a touch screen. So the question is how to perform selection on a touch screen. It's not trivial, I know. You haven't solved it anyway by adopting single-click. You have just created the same problem on desktop. You had: - desktop: - single click selects - double click opens - touchscreen: - single touch opens -what do I do to select?? Now you have - desktop: - single click opens - what do I do to select?? - touchscreen: - single touch opens - what do I do to select?? Yes, you made it more consistent, I give you that. By breaking it where it already worked fine.
Even though I now use and like single-click, I'd change the default just so we can never waste time on this discussion ever again. You've got to convince others who see it differently, not me.