Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Sebastien,

On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 09:09 +0100, Sébastien Le Ray wrote:
this simple shadow patch has generated a long discussion on
Libreoffice-design. Some people don't like the color, some people don't
like the amount of blur, some people want no shadow at all, some people
want a "4 borders" shadow. So here is a second patchset that tries to
address the first three critics :

        So - firstly, this -sounds- like an interaction disaster :-) I hope it
is not of course, but it looks like this:

        We finally get a competant, enthusiastic, motivated developer -
actually fixing our horrible user interface problems: and he does some
great improvement - and our design guys apparently emit a long stream of
complaining left and right ! That, if true, is hard to excuse.

        We need to greet new guys with a torrent of encouragement instead I
think. I hope I'm wrong - I don't read the design list because I can't
interact there [ Reply-To: mangling sucks ;-] - but this paragraph
smells problematic. I think we need to remember that the perfect is the
sworn enemy of the good - so lets get good across the code, before we
get perfect.

        Perhaps we should move all programmer interaction on design / UI topics
onto this list, or a new Freedesktop one - and leave the 'design' list
as more of a 'discuss' type forum.

        Sebastien, I hear the complaints; and I read your nice patches (and
just pushed them[1]), but did you really want to do all of this ? If
not, I'll revert what you don't like. Personally, I would have preferred
you to move on to some other fun / high-impact win, rather than getting
bogged down in random details here ;-)

        You did a great job learning how the .src / etc. madness works
though :-) good stuff there, it is not completely obvious.

 - It adds a configuration option
- It adds a configuration option to disable shadow;

        In my experience of user interaction - adding configuration options is
a cowardly, and silly way to deal with disagreements about defaults :-)
[ not your fault, the design team's issue; check out the settings dialog
in any Apple product ].

        IMHO we badly need to hide / remove tons of our pointless configuration
options - which incidentally also slow down program execution, slow down
our startup, bloat our user interface, make testing harder, and thus our
code buggier and so on. [ At least, I'm willing to argue that in detail
but ... ;-]

        Personally, I liked what Sebastian did originally - it was sufficiently
better to be really nice; was there any real need to bloat the feature,
further complicate the code, and discuss this minutia to death ? do I
really need a green page shadow ?

I'll let design team play and discuss with that, when they agree on a
default, I'll provide an additional patch to take it into account.

        Thanks for your patience Sebastien, I'd just recommend moving onto
something else at speed ;-)

Note: I had to perform a make dev-install for settings to be correctly

        Ah yes - this is a mis-feature of linkoo - that we don't link the
configuration data (possibly we cannot if it is processed in some way -
but perhaps we can do better; cf. solenv/bin/linkoo).

        Anyhow - nice patches; but a pain to commit (lots of modules) can you
go through the process here and mail me the bug # please ? then
hopefully you can push your changes yourself:

        Thanks !


[1] - I'd still feel happier if we could have the bitmaps as member
variables somewhere, rather than 
--  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.