Thanks for the reply. Let’s separate some issues:
Complexity/simplicity from the user perspective: this should NOT be a concern. There are MANY programs that are used at both simple and complex levels by users. Children can use Microsoft Word. They cannot use Visual Basic scripting, but that doesn’t mean that Word shouldn’t support such scripting. Children cannot use Styles easily, but they are available for mid-level users. Logseq’s default layout and options can stay simple, and you can still allow users to make it more complex if they choose to do so. Logseq can easily have the current simple layout with one window/buffer, and allow advanced users to optionally activate additional buffers. Can children use Losgeq queries? Should we have them? It is great to have a program with the goal that anyone can START using it, and they can grow with the program and learn to enjoy all of its potential.
So everyone, STOP worrying that the option for a complex UI means that everyone has to learn a complex UI! It doesn’t!
Now, as for technical complexity, that’s another story. First, I don’t really know the difference between a canvas and multiple windows, but either approach is fine if it lets me choose how many notes to see at one time and customize things like putting in iframes or an outline view. As for edge cases, if the basic idea of a more customizable UI is a goal, I am sure we can figure out solutions for these particular things. If you have multiple windows open, when you shift/click the block, can’t you choose the window under the mouse cursor? It will be easy to think of potential problems, and it is important to do so to figure out solutions, but I would love to see custom UI layout be on the roadmap as a long-term goal to keep in mind.
Maybe other more technically knowledgeable users can comment on ways to actually implement this concept?