On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 04:00:21PM +0200, NoWhereMan wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Youness Alaoui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > I'm very interested in your thoughts about this. > >> > Please tell me whether you think 2 theming engines would be a waste of > >> > time or not, > >> > and if you think they can both (EFL themes + Qt 4 themes) live happily > >> > together, > >> > please tell me what you think about my theming engine idea for the Qt > >> > 4 interface. > >> > >> > >> With a theming engine for QT4, it'll look less desktop-integrated imo. > >> I think the desktop integration thing is more about having the same > >> buttons everywhere, having the same dialog boxes, the same filechooser > >> everywhere... If you have a dark theme, you'll have the same dark > >> buttons/grey background. > >> You might loose the "perfect integration" if for example, the user > >> have a dark theme, the login window is bright due to the theming. > >> > > true, but then that's the choice to the user... if a user > > wants his QT buttons/checkboxes/windows instead of the efl > > non-desktop-integrated buttons/windows, but would still want > > to see a different theme (like the WLM one), he should be > > able to do it! > > In the end, as I said in the previous mail.. what really > > matter are those stupid dialog boxes... :s and.. most > > probably the politics of people who want "their toolkit".. > > > IMO opinion (but "hey it's OSS so do whatever you want") > first of all, efforts should be spent to provide basic functionality to all > the > front-ends, and only *then* think of skins and eye-candyness in general.
That's the thing, if you put basic functionality and put themeing on the side, then once you want to add themeing, you might have to rewrite everything... it's really a design thing, for example QT4 (I'm not sure profoX would answer you better I guess), the current design is based on whether or not he wants to support themes.. whether to use .ui files, or to use python code for creating the UI.. whether to use a QGraphicsView or something else.. whether to use stylesheets or not, etc... > > I'd suggest to go for the EFL way for the visual-richer client > while still providing very basic graphic functionalities to the other > toolkits[1]. > I still think people would want eye-candy but still want to use their "favorite toolkit".. I'm sure a LOT of people will refuse to try any toolkit other than GTK or other than QT, no matter if it's better, etc... some people didn't even want us to use XUL because although it's completely native on all platforms, it mimics gtk/qt without actually using the library itself, and even if noone can ever see the difference, it's still "not gtk" only because it's not linked with the library.. wtf! There are a lot of political (and stupid) stuff with this toolkit war, so we provide multi front end, everyone is happy, and if we want/can we provide whatever eye candy we want... as long as it always stays optional... > About politics, while I agree there a lot of people who blabber without > knowing > a heck about programming about which would be "TEH BEST" graphic toolkit > or DE in their mind, I still think desktop integration is important; you > know > how many efforts Mozilla has been spending on making their browser > more integrated with the different desktops and operating system. > > A lot of Windows users, who are more accustomed to see custom widget systems > (each new program they install tends to behave and look differently: even > antiviruses!), > do not really care; actually I've heard people who really liked one or > another app > because of its odd GUI. > > On the other hand Mac users care generally more about this point, and you > people > know this, as lot of the efforts spent on the Mac version of aMSN1 are on > tuning > the skin to perfect fit the OS; and that's perfectly reasonable: even if > only once > in a while, a different toolkit popping in looks odd and out of place: but > that's only *one* > reason for which many people didn't like the Tk look and feel: it's not > only it was "odd" as in > "different", because I think it wouldn't have matter as long as it looked > cool (apart from > the skinned parts), but Tk in fact looked > > 1) *unpolished*, for the long-time lack of font antialiasing as a default > 2) *aged*, not only in the looks (buttons and such) but also in the > behaviour (e.g. menus). > > You say, hey, you saw that stuff for about 1 sec a day (if you ever did), > yeah, but > you know... it looked weird and it broke user experience. > > again all the luck guys, I'll stay tuned and blabber (troll?) around from > time to time > > bye > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Amsn-devel mailing list Amsn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amsn-devel
