Quoting Bradley T Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ciprian Popovici wrote:
> I thought so... 8x8 or 16x16 (possibly configurable?) checkers in the > same style as interlacing (i.e. one box is slightly darker than the > other). Would make a sexy background :) I'd say configurable. No idea what fonts people are going to use, so you can't have a one size fits all. How about: window.title.backgroundSpread: 8 If we call it something generic like "backgroundSpread" we may decide to use it for other textures too, such as interlaced. > > Speaking of separators, how about a little more space around them? > > Just a few more pixels. I think they are excessively short right now, > > they look almost like an underline for the above text. > > This is completely possible... today separators are > menu.frame.borderWidth + 2 pixels high... i could make them > menu.frame.borderWidth + (2 * menu.frame.marginWidth) high (see attached > patch) Idea: separator height = font height - 2 (or 4) pixels. The font for the menu frame, of course. > Taking into account the various suggestions, I see something like this: > > menu.title.appearance: flat diagonal gradient border shadowedText > menu.title.color1: cornsilk1 > menu.title.color2: cornsilk3 > menu.title.textColor: black > menu.title.shadowColor: cornsilk4 > menu.title.borderWidth: 1 > menu.title.borderColor: black I favor backgroundColor and backgroundColorTo instead of color1 and color2, respectively. I think it's more suggestive to immediately show that they regard the background. When I first toyed with the idea of font shadows (actually have a patch for 0.65 around here) I considered this: don't specifically request shadowedText; instead, see if any of textShadowColor or textLightColor are present in the resources. If textShadowColor is present, do the shadow, if textLightColor is present to the light, if one is missing don't do that one. But the only problem I saw here is how to tackle defaults. The way Blackbox works, if I got it right, if a resource is missing it will be assigned a default value. There's never been a case IIRC where a missing resource means it must be kept missing. This would be a first and probably unwanted break with tradition. So perhaps using "shadow" and "light" keywords in the appearance may be better. Why "shadow" and "light" and not "shadowText" and "lightText"? Because we have appearance for buttons too... and perhaps we can apply the double/triple rendering trick to button pixmaps too, in which case we'd need a more generic keyword. Warning: from what I've seen during my experiments with shadowed text, some care must be taken about the window label height. I had to add a pixel to the bottom and one at the top, because otherwise when the label is raised/sunken, the shadow/light would touch the edges and look ugly. So let's overview the proposed changes and additions once more, see what you think: *.appearance: flat checkered border shadow light *.backgroundSpread: 8 !honoured for interlaced and checkered *.backgroundColor: cornsilk1 !always *.backgroundColorTo: cornsilk3 !honoured for gradient/interlaced/checkered *.textColor: black !always *.shadowColor: cornsilk4 !honoured for shadow, be it text/button pixmap *.lightColor: white !honoured for light, be it text/button pixmap -- Ciprian Popovici -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://asgardsrealm.net/lurker/splash/index.html
