From: Andras M. <ma...@vi...> - 2006-07-02 19:12:28
|
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:16:59 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > On 10/29/05, Andras Mohari <ma...@ma...> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I couldn't resist the temptation so I've reworked a number of dialogs in >> ROX-Filer because I was curious how they could be represented in a >> different (perhaps better???) way. I am not at all sure if my patch will >> ever be applied to the CVS version, but someone might still find it >> useful. > > Anyone have any comments on this? I attach a slightly updated version of > the patch (just to make it apply to current svn). It's a bit big to review > / apply in one go, so if anyone wants to split it up that would help get > it applied faster! Wow, I kissed goodbye to this patch quite a long time ago (as nobody really seemed to be interested in it). Thanks for updating it, Thomas. Since it was me who came up with it, I should be nice and split it up...but I'm not sure when/if I can do that as I am having a busy summer starting next week. So, if anyone else feels like doing it... ;-) >> Drop box widget: > > The bold looks good, and using a tooltip is an improvement. Not sure about > the new box-within-a-box thing. The outer box seems rather pointless. I'm confused now -- you are talking about the "Set run action" box, right? If so, then I guess the outer box you mentioned is the one that is called "mainbox" in the source. I only used it so that I could align the action area with the button box (by setting the border width). Does anyone know a better way to do that? (And yes, it *is* important to align things. :-)) > "Either drag an application here..." perhaps? Why not? (But it almost duplicates the "Drag a suitable application here" in the drop area.) >> * Arranged the SUID/SGID/Sticky checkboxes horizontally and moved them >> into the last row (and added extra spacing above the row). > > I think I'd slightly prefer SetUID and SetGID back on the user/group > rows, since they are related to users and groups. OTOH, they're not > giving permissions *for* the owner or group so maybe the end is better. > In any case, they really need tooltips! "...not giving permissions *for* the owner or group..." was one reason I moved them away. The other was to narrow the permissions view (which seemed like a good idea given that texts translated from English tend to be longer than the original). And I had plenty of vertical space. >> `Set backdrop' dialog: >> * Placed the drop box on the top (to suggest that one should _first_ >> make sure that the image is set, and _then_ play with the radio >> buttons). >> * Placed the radios in a 2x2 table: > > I think this makes the box too narrow by default. Especially now that > the buttons are on the same line as the path, the path is almost > invisible (this is why the path had its own line in the original design > - to get the maximum display width). Hm, yes, not seeing the path can be a problem. (Although one can still see the tooltip. And it's true that the label widget can get the maximum width in the original design, but only the last 38 characters of the label are displayed anyway.) >> `Edit item' box (for pinboard/panels): * Left-aligned the labels. * >> Added spacers between label/entry pairs. > > This dialog still looks fairly ugly, though :-( Would it be better to use *short* labels *beside* the entries? -- Andras Mohari |