Martin Nordholts wrote: > On 02/02/2010 02:40 PM, yahvuu wrote: > Thanks, I've uploaded a new patch with this addressed.
thank you for caring about this stuff! will check it out.. >> Ideally, the tabs would gracefully degrade when there's not >> enough space available. For increasing number of tabs: >> 1. icon + label >> 2. icon + short label >> 3. icon only >> 4. icon || arrows for scrolling here's how that might look like: http://yahvuu.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/tabsdegradation.png To be honest, i like neither 2a) nor 2b) very much. > One thing is unclear though, how would we map the current Tab Style > settings to this? One approach would be to add a new style "Automatic" > and make it default, but that doesn't feel very elegant... i don't think a default "Automatic" style hurts much. Nobody should have to mess with that menu on a regular basis. > I'd also like to, just for reference, link to a related discussion about > making Tab Style a more global setting: > > "[Gimp-developer] Making dockable tab style a global setting" > http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2009-December/023825.html while re-reading, i had a look at how CS4 looks like, and i now understand what Peter meant by calmness of text: http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots/Adobe-PhotoShop-Trial_1.png - très chic. and really guides the attention to the dialog. But i don't think that discreet icons really hurt. Here's a second comparison, which also tries small icons, like Alexia said: http://yahvuu.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/tabheighticons.png I guess icon size is within the domain of theming?!? regards, yahvuu _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer