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" <imikejack...@gmail.com>
> To: qt-creator <qt-creator@qt-project.org>
> 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]: mike.jack...@bluequartz.net
> 
> 
> 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"<andre.poen...@qt.io>
> >>> To: "Mike Jackson"<imikejack...@gmail.com>, "Jason H"<jh...@gmx.com>
> >>> Cc: qt-creator<qt-creator@qt-project.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Qt-creator] Lost in 4.2
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mike Jackson<imikejack...@gmail.com>
> >>>> <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
> > Qt-creator@qt-project.org
> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-creator mailing list
> Qt-creator@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
>
_______________________________________________
Qt-creator mailing list
Qt-creator@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator

Reply via email to