I didn't get into computers because I was a "people person". But I still don't want to be rude.
Well that's a large component of my surprise. The Qt UI stuff is usually better than I imagine. > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 at 4:26 PM > From: "Mike Jackson" <[email protected]> > To: qt-creator <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Qt-creator] Lost in 4.2 > > Funny, I had a really long drawn out response but it really boils down > to this: We all want QtCreator to be best in class. We are all > passionate about QtCreator and want to see it succeed. That is all. > > Some of us just may not possess the "socially acceptable phrasing" you > write about. > > -- > Michael A. Jackson > President, Owner > BlueQuartz Software, LLC > [e]: [email protected] > > > André Pönitz wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:33:08PM +0100, Jason H wrote: > >>> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 at 5:02 PM > >>> From: "Andre Poenitz"<[email protected]> > >>> To: "Mike Jackson"<[email protected]>, "Jason H"<[email protected]> > >>> Cc: qt-creator<[email protected]> > >>> Subject: Re: [Qt-creator] Lost in 4.2 > >>> > >>> > >>> Mike Jackson<[email protected]> > >>>> <rant> > >>> > Rule 1: "new" way of doing user interfaces dictates that in no way > >>> > should the UI widgets indicate that they can be clicked, moved or > >>> > interacted with. It is entirely up to the user to simply click all > >>> over > >>> > the interface until some hidden menu shows up or something happens. > >>> > >>> This is an old-fashioned, standard context menu on items in a tree view, > >>> a concept that is in use in dozens of places all over of Qt Creator since > >>> the beginning. > >>> > >>> The fact that it *also* reacts to single clicks is a convenience shortcut > >>> for people who are capable of reading documentation or possible > >>> asking politely on the mailing list. Also rather old-school skills. > >> > >> It looks nested, but not a tree to me. > > > > It is a QTreeView. There's a delegate to make the first level of items a > > bit larger and bold. The view is also forced to be always expanded, and > > the expand/collapse markers are suppressed (since they wouldn't serve > > much of a purpose since it's not collapsable...) > > > > The core of this terrible modernization is > > > > void SelectorDelegate::paint(QPainter *painter, > > const QStyleOptionViewItem&option, const QModelIndex&index) const > > { > > auto model = static_cast<const ProjectsModel *>(index.model()); > > QStyleOptionViewItem opt = option; > > if (TreeItem *item = model->itemForIndex(index)) { > > switch (item->level()) { > > case 2: { > > QColor col = creatorTheme()->color(Theme::TextColorNormal); > > opt.palette.setColor(QPalette::Text, col); > > opt.font.setBold(true); > > opt.font.setPointSizeF(opt.font.pointSizeF() * 1.2); > > break; > > } > > } > > } > > QStyledItemDelegate::paint(painter, opt, index); > > } > > > > All these *gosh* deviations from a stock QTreeView instance are direct > > responses to explicit requests that were made by users of the features > > during the four(!) months this has been publically accessible to anyone > > who has a strong opinion on how the next release of a piece of software > > should look like. > > > > The change went in intentionally in the very early days of the 4.2 > > development branch since it is known and understood that certain > > people are bound to express strong opinions on any kind of UI change, > > warranted or not, etc, etc, to give everybody remotely interested > > the opportunity to comment early, ideally before UI string freeze > > which typically marks the end of UI changes for a release. > > > >> There needs to be buttons. > > > > Let me try to translate this into something that I would consider > > a socially acceptable phrasing of exactly the same idea: > > > > "Hey guys, I really tried, but had a hard time to find out how to get > > a kit active for my project. Can't you add a button or two to make > > the functionality from the context menu more directly accessible?" > > > > My role then would be to respond with something like > > > > "Well, it would make it look more cluttered, but sure, there's > > still some room at the bottom, should we put it there?" > > > > This follows a traditional pattern of human communication, even if it > > looks a bit convoluted, if not nonsensical. It leaves you enough room to > > not spell out what you really mean between your lines, and it leaves me > > enough room to not spell out things I really mean between my lines and > > gives both of us an opportunity to actually solve a problem without > > getting overly agitated or upset. > > > >> I vehemently oppose degradation of usability because it isn't "modern". > > > > You bark at a change that effectively removes several hundred lines > > of custom code implementing a machinery of two (three, actually) > > handcrafted tab bars that were specifically designed to look different > > and modern at the time and was unique not only within Creator, but also > > not present in any other application I am aware of, and that replaces > > aforementioned with a stock 90's treeview with two dozen lines of > > customization on top (also available at the time). > > > > Looks like mankind truly entered the post-factual age. > > > > Andre' > > _______________________________________________ > > Qt-creator mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator > _______________________________________________ > Qt-creator mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator > _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
