filipf added a comment.
In D14949#336029 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D14949#336029>, @davidedmundson wrote: > > What is this "mechanism" you are talking about? I'm intrigued! > > We have a mechanism for theme providers to change the OSD. (the whole LNF package stuff). They can override all qml, that qml does the positioning. > > The recurring pattern that we want to avoid is having a framework where theme creators can set everything, whilst simultaneously the default theme becomes itself a theme engine itself by having a billion options. Putting the responsibility on theme creators is not a sure-shot way to address things because they usually change a lot more than just OSDs. This means if the user simply wants to address particular concerns regarding OSDs, they also have to go along with the new theme's entire design vision (which is not necessarily always great). So this is in certain cases actually a worse solution than, say, getting a very specific extension in GNOME. Of course though, I do agree there should be a line where one customization option would be too much, I just don't think it applies here - both due to legitimate concerns I tried to touch on in my previous post and both due to the fact that plasma-pa settings are really not at all exhaustive as is. REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D14949 To: anonym, #vdg Cc: davidedmundson, filipf, rooty, graesslin, svenmauch, ngraham, romangg, mart, broulik, plasma-devel, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol
