On 07/29/2012 07:50 PM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
[that on 2012-07-29 at 16:59, The Wanderer wrote:]
>> On 07/29/2012 11:12 AM, Wido wrote:
>>> To change how the comp works, go to control panel -> composite -> effects
>>> tab. In styles you can change the behaviour (I have everything and and
>>> windows don't 'wobble' when selected)
>>
>> I did find that, yes.
>>
>> Unfortunately, none of the settings in the Effects tab seem obviously
>> related to the "bounce" / "wobble" effect, and most of them seem to have
>> cryptic names which don't seem to be explained anywhere nearby.
>
> how are they cryptic? they are named after usage. eg things used for menus,
> popup. there is a "still" one that is totally still... another used for
> everything. etc.
First, I don't actually know what "everything" is even yet, and I think the
default understanding of the term is going to be as the literal compound word
"every-thing" rather than as the name of the E-related "subprogram" or whatever
it actually is. (It's only now, as I'm editing this message after writing, that
I figured out that Wido meant that he is using the "everything" style, not that
he has "all of the things" turned on.)
I have a vague understanding, from having played around with other E17
configuration options, that the "popup" refers to the "window list" which
appears when switching focus (unless you turn that off) and/or to the little
"you are here now" window which appears when switching desktops.
...I'll cut myself off there before I go off on what could turn out to be a
complete tangent. You see, I'm still confused as to whether what's listed in the
"Styles" tab are A: "global styles" which, if selected, will change the behavior
of E17 as a whole, or B: "domain-specific styles" which will change the behavior
of only the domain which they are assigned to (e.g., the "popup" style only
affecting that pop-up "window list", et cetera).
I think it's probably A, since B would seem to require being able to edit the
style which is going to be applied (as opposed to just selecting it) - but if
it's A, why do they seem to be named after these other existing elements?
I'm quite sure it all makes sense from the perspective of someone who knows E17
inside and out, but it doesn't at first (or second or third) glance from mine.
> choose the one u prefer. it shows it right there animated as a preview
> visually so someone who is totally illiterate can even see what they do :).
> ever tries just selecting one and seeing if u like it or not?
No, because it wasn't obvious for some time that these could actually be
"selected" (as opposed to "highlighted", which can have multiple meanings,
including none at all) in any meaningful way.
In addition, the animated previews are so small, and so very similar to one
another (at least in the default theme and configuration), that I didn't even
notice at first that they weren't all displaying exactly the same thing. (I
think most of them *do* display the exact same thing in at least some of the
"phases" of the animation, which only exacerbates the problem.)
I think the main problem was that I came to this window expecting to be able to
actually configure the visual results which would be displayed, when what it
appears to be intended to do instead is to let you switch among a set of
pre-configured profiles defined by the theme.
That's far less accessible and usable for anyone who wants to do actual hands-on
configuration, and is different from any of the other E17 configuration dialogs
I've seen; all of the others seem to let you change options directly, rather
than just choosing among sets of predefined options.
If nothing else, I think it would be helpful to be able to see - for any given
"style" - exactly what settings are being applied, even if you can't change
them. It wouldn't have been enough to satisfy me given what I went in there
expecting, but it would be more useful, and it might have been enough to give me
the hint of what was actually going on.
>> I do see what looks like the same "bounce" in the cyclic animations of some
>> of the things which look like "previews" on the Default sub-tab of the
>> Effects tab, but I can't find any way to edit any of those. (I see what
>> look like the same objects on the Style tab of the Edit dialog of each of
>> the entries in the Over sub-tab, but I don't see any way to change any of
>> them from there, either.)
>
> they are all provided by the theme. if you want to edit - break out your text
> editor and make a theme. these effects are not implemented in code anywhere,
> they are defined by the theme as whole already done packaged "looks", thus
> you don't edit them - you just select.
And that's the problem.
I'm probably going to *have* to create my own theme, if only because there
doesn't seem to be a BlueSteel analogue for E17 yet. However, I do find this a
bit... user-unfriendly.
Someone who likes most of the characteristics of the theme they're using (which
may be the default), but wants to tweak one or two things, will apparently have
to create an entire separate theme in order to do that - and doing so will
require learning the "theme language" or other syntax, whatever that may be. And
that's far less user-friendly than being able to simply adjust the options in a
configuration dialog.
I'm relatively technically competent, but even I don't "already know" how to do
that, and find the idea of having to do so something of a chore. A more ordinary
user is likely to be even more put off by this (or even unable to understand the
idea at all), but may well still legitimately want to tweak things.
I understand that there are probably technical reasons why it "works better", in
terms of maintainability and perhaps even of bigger-picture customizability, to
do it this way. But I still think that it's a bad approach from a
user-friendliness perspective.
>> I'll be honest: I don't see why *anyone* would actually want this "bounce"
>> behavior, at least to such an extreme degree. As such, I would think it
>> would be far better to have it disabled by default, if indeed present at
>> all. However, even if it is desired enough to justify its being the
>> default, the way to disable it needs to be far more obvious than it appears
>> to be.
>
> if you had updated e in the past we weeks
Unfortunately, I'm running E17 from the Debian package, which means I'm probably
well further behind than that. The package version is 0.16.999.70492-2, which
probably means SVN revision 70492. (If you're using SVN - for some reason my
default expectation nowadays is for any random project to be using git, even
though I know most of them don't.)
If I do end up getting into this, I will very likely start compiling from
current up-to-date source on a somewhat regular basis, at least for VM-based
testing purposes.
> u'll notice default doesnt fade or wobble anymore - it only zooms+fades in
> and out on show/hide and has a shadow. but again - it always has been
> configurable so always fixable to whatever tickles your fancy.
But only by manually editing the theme in a text editor, I presume? For your
"ordinary" user, I'm not remotely sure that that's good enough.
>> Beyond that, I think that the entire Effects tab needs to be much more
>> comprehensible, or at the very least to come with a pointer to
>> documentation - "if you don't understand this section of the configuration,
>> go read about it here". However, it does seem plausible that this lack
>> might be because Composite isn't complete or isn't "ready for prime time"
>> yet.
>
> why don't you just try select one and hit apply? "no - don't like that.. try
> another"...
I may well do so, now that I understand that that's what is going on in that
settings window. Given the conflicting-assumptions-based confusion that was
going on initially, though, it didn't even occur to me that this might be
something to potentially be able to try; I was expecting the things listed in
the settings window to be editable, not simply selectable.
>> (None of that addresses the "memory footprint" and related arguments, which
>> do matter to me if only for reasons of principle, but I'm not planning to
>> argue that one in depth without trying to get some actual data to back
>> myself up with; it's entirely possible that my impression of E17's relative
>> resource usage is far out of sync with reality.)
>
> by moving compositing into corer we actually reduce memory footprint compared
> to it being in a module. we'll save at a MINIMUM 1x the size of your
> framebuffer (eg if 1920x1080 then that's 8mb). just to start. we'll save even
> more in reality (if using gl for compositing then something like about
> 16-18mb will get saved given the 1080p screen) and then when things like
> desklock appear we save an additional 8mb etc. for software compositing
> savings are a bit lower - 8-10mb normally with 8mb saved while desklock is up
> etc.
You've gone into this in considerably more detail elsewhere, and my concerns are
well on their way to being relieved. Thank you.
(FWIW, I'm running at 2650x1600, so the baseline savings would be rather
higher.)
>> I have no real answers, however as best as I can tell, the first sheet on
>> the compositing options are preconfigured defaults. Every time I have used
>> the compositor, I just go to the options and select the "none" on the
>> default screen. This disables transparencies and the wobble.
>>
>> I do however also want to vote against "forcing" the compositor.
>>
>> It has never really worked for me, both performance wise, and random weird
>> graphical issue wise.
I note that you actually replied to the message posted by Robert Krambovitis
(and the attribution above is somewhat screwed up as a result, due to the
nonstandard way his reply quoted me), but didn't say anything in direct response
to what he wrote; was that intentional?
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
- LiveJournal user antonia_tiger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-users mailing list
enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
