From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2002-06-17 10:38:39
|
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:58:56AM +0200, Goetz Waschk wrote: [...] > Hi, > > BTW I'm maintaining the Mandrake packages for rox. The rox-base needs > to be updated for rox 1.3.1 too. I have some other suggestions for rox: rox-base isn't used for 1.3.1... > 1. icons. Gnome has icons for almost everything. We could simply > require their gnome-mime-data package. Except we don't know where it's installed. Also, all the names start with 'gnome'! You might want to propose some kind of shared icon system at freedesktop.org. I think there's a general feeling that this would be a Good Thing. > 2. SendTo. I think the additional operations for a mime type shouldn't > be hidden in the SendTo submenu. They should be in the right click > menu. Yes, I'm not very happy with the current system. A better plan might be to put the information about which MIME types each app can handle in the AppInfo.xml file. Then, you can point SendTo at your Apps directory and use that. Matching applications would be displayed in the main menu, and non-matching ones in a submenu. > 3. i18n. The format of the ApInfo.xml files should support translations. Yes. It does a bit, but needs more work... > Anyway, I'm very happy with ROX, it has replaced nautilus on my desktop. :-) -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |
From: Geoff Y. <g...@in...> - 2002-06-21 18:09:22
|
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 05:13:06PM +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:38:48PM +0200, Guido Schimmels wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:05:33 +0100 > > Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:25:07AM +0200, Guido Schimmels wrote: > > > [...] > > > I've already copied some across, but the trouble with many of them is that > > > they all look very similar. In fact, they're often the same icon but with > > > the extension written on! > > > > This is only true for the groups image, audio, video. And there it is a > > natural thing to do ! The individual formats within those groups can't > > be differentiated by icons in a meaningfull way. The only thing you > > could do is, for example for the group image, thumb-nail some pictures > > from the Louvre. Well I think it's ok the way it is and btw. the > > NextStep icons use the same strategy (don't know about MacOS X). > > Yes, grouping is a good idea. The original plan (started by Andrew Clover) > was to have several groups of icons (directory, text, image, etc), each > with a smaller icon in the lower right corner. > > So, HTML is text+globe and PS is text+printer. Archives should probably be > directory+box, bmp bitmap+windows logo, etc. ie, the same as GNOME but > using icons instead of text (in part because you can still recognise them > in Small Icons mode). > > Probably someone with artistic sense (ie, not me) should take the GNOME > icons as the base and paste on some other subicons. The main groups should > be things like: [snip] Would it be possible to consider icon states at the same time? For instance, I like the idea of directory icons which behave like later versions of RISC OS when a directory is open. It would also be nice to be able to replace the white/green circle for mount points with a icons displaying the state of the mount point. On a related point: does anyone have any ideas about an alternative way to mount devices (such as USB based devices)? Although ROX's fstab support is great for mounting things that fstab was designed to handle, such as floppy drives and other 'static' devices it is more cumbersome when dealing with (for example) a variety of USB based storage devices which might be plugged in to any of the available USB ports. This is probably beyond the scope of ROX, but a solution which integrates nicely would be nice :) TTFN, geoff. |
From: zipht <zi...@de...> - 2002-06-22 07:07:35
|
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 14:27, Geoff Youngs wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 05:13:06PM +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:38:48PM +0200, Guido Schimmels wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:05:33 +0100 > > > Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:25:07AM +0200, Guido Schimmels wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > I've already copied some across, but the trouble with many of them is that > > > > they all look very similar. In fact, they're often the same icon but with > > > > the extension written on! > > > > > > This is only true for the groups image, audio, video. And there it is a > > > natural thing to do ! The individual formats within those groups can't > > > be differentiated by icons in a meaningfull way. The only thing you > > > could do is, for example for the group image, thumb-nail some pictures > > > from the Louvre. Well I think it's ok the way it is and btw. the > > > NextStep icons use the same strategy (don't know about MacOS X). > > > > Yes, grouping is a good idea. The original plan (started by Andrew Clover) > > was to have several groups of icons (directory, text, image, etc), each > > with a smaller icon in the lower right corner. > > > > So, HTML is text+globe and PS is text+printer. Archives should probably be > > directory+box, bmp bitmap+windows logo, etc. ie, the same as GNOME but > > using icons instead of text (in part because you can still recognise them > > in Small Icons mode). > > > > Probably someone with artistic sense (ie, not me) should take the GNOME > > icons as the base and paste on some other subicons. The main groups should > > be things like: > > [snip] > > Would it be possible to consider icon states at the same time? and what about icon sizeing? i really like the small icon on > n files. but small is just abit too small... > > For instance, I like the idea of directory icons which behave like later > versions of RISC OS when a directory is open. > > It would also be nice to be able to replace the white/green circle for > mount points with a icons displaying the state of the mount point. you know i was just thinking that it would be nice to have themes. thus we could change the menu buttons, mount point icons etc. kind of like galeon themes. > > On a related point: does anyone have any ideas about an alternative way > to mount devices (such as USB based devices)? Although ROX's fstab > support is great for mounting things that fstab was designed to handle, > such as floppy drives and other 'static' devices it is more cumbersome > when dealing with (for example) a variety of USB based storage devices > which might be plugged in to any of the available USB ports. This is > probably beyond the scope of ROX, but a solution which integrates > nicely would be nice :) check out linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net the usb hotplug daemon does all the work. no need to get rox involved. > > > TTFN, > > geoff. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Sponsored by: > ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ > _______________________________________________ > rox-devel mailing list > rox...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rox-devel |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2002-06-21 16:13:16
|
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:38:48PM +0200, Guido Schimmels wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:05:33 +0100 > Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:25:07AM +0200, Guido Schimmels wrote: > > [...] > > I've already copied some across, but the trouble with many of them is that > > they all look very similar. In fact, they're often the same icon but with > > the extension written on! > > This is only true for the groups image, audio, video. And there it is a > natural thing to do ! The individual formats within those groups can't > be differentiated by icons in a meaningfull way. The only thing you > could do is, for example for the group image, thumb-nail some pictures > from the Louvre. Well I think it's ok the way it is and btw. the > NextStep icons use the same strategy (don't know about MacOS X). Yes, grouping is a good idea. The original plan (started by Andrew Clover) was to have several groups of icons (directory, text, image, etc), each with a smaller icon in the lower right corner. So, HTML is text+globe and PS is text+printer. Archives should probably be directory+box, bmp bitmap+windows logo, etc. ie, the same as GNOME but using icons instead of text (in part because you can still recognise them in Small Icons mode). Probably someone with artistic sense (ie, not me) should take the GNOME icons as the base and paste on some other subicons. The main groups should be things like: - Directory (dir, zip, tar, jar) - Text (plain, html, tex, abiword) - Bitmap (jpeg, gif, png) - Vector (svg, tgif) - Source code (.c, .h, python, perl) - Binary (.o, .pyo, .exe, .gz) - Sound sample (ogg, mp3, wav) - Sequence (midi, mod, lilypond) - Video (mpg, avi) The main groups should be very distinct, and the subgroups recognisable at Small size. Any takers? -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |
From: Robert D. <rob...@ha...> - 2002-06-21 23:27:22
|
21/06/2002 17:13:06, Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> wrote: > >Probably someone with artistic sense (ie, not me) should take the GNOME >icons as the base and paste on some other subicons. The main groups should >be things like: > >- Directory (dir, zip, tar, jar) >- Text (plain, html, tex, abiword) > >- Bitmap (jpeg, gif, png) >- Vector (svg, tgif) > >- Source code (.c, .h, python, perl) >- Binary (.o, .pyo, .exe, .gz) > Just a small point. Shouldn't source code be 'Text' with a sub icon of '.c' or '.h' etc? Especially as html is considered a sub type of text in the list above, and that could be considered a source code of sorts. -- Robert Davison |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2002-06-28 13:27:37
|
On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 12:25:25AM +0100, Robert Davison wrote: > 21/06/2002 17:13:06, Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> > wrote: > > >Probably someone with artistic sense (ie, not me) should take the GNOME > >icons as the base and paste on some other subicons. The main > >groups should be things like: > > >- Directory (dir, zip, tar, jar) > >- Text (plain, html, tex, abiword) > > > >- Bitmap (jpeg, gif, png) > >- Vector (svg, tgif) > > > >- Source code (.c, .h, python, perl) > >- Binary (.o, .pyo, .exe, .gz) > > Just a small point. Shouldn't source code be 'Text' with a sub > icon of '.c' or '.h' etc? Especially as html is considered a sub > type of text in the list above, and that could be considered a > source code of sorts. Well, the categories are a bit fuzzy. For example, SVG could also be considered text, while XPM could be text, source code or bitmap. Generally, text is something a user might want to click on and read (HTML, Word, Postscript, plain text, etc, not the MIME definition of text). You use 'text' type files for writing essays, memos and so on. Source code is something only a programmer wants to read, not a general purpose way of representing a document. -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |