Planned user interface changes

Developers
2006-06-24
2013-06-05
  • Mark Pazolli

    Mark Pazolli - 2006-06-24

    Hi,

    In the spirit of improving communication I thought of mentioning some of the minor points about the current user interface that I plan to change.

    1. The corner radius slider in the rectangular selection options is marked but it is a continuous sliders. Marked sliders are typically reserved for discrete sliders in Seashore.

    2. The corner radius option does not have a checkbox associated with it like the "Fade-out" option in the paint brush options dialog as such it cannot be turned off quickly without interrupting the rounded rectange settings by sliding the slider to zero.

    3. The choice of bracket values in the selection options is used nowhere else in Seashore (see the  paint brush, paint bucket, smudge and eraser tools). Furthermore the choice to put the value and text label in different labels is non-standard and may cause difficulties in localization.

    4. Many of the preference options needlessly call "[[[documents objectAtIndex:i] docView] setNeedsDisplay:YES];" after every change. This could lead to needless delays on application.

    These concerns are what I am hoping to work on next but if you want to jump in and fix some of them before me please do. I mention them so you know why I am making the changes I am making and why I feel they are important. In producing good software, I feel small details like these are critical.

    Mark.

     
    • Mark Pazolli

      Mark Pazolli - 2006-06-24

      I should add that, overall though, I feel many of the changes you are making are moving the application in a better direction.

      Mark.

       
    • Stephen Siciliano

      For 1-3 I see what you mean and those are all good changes. The reason for 4 is that previously when the preferences window had a submit-type button it called setNeedsDisplay no matter what changes were made. If you think that there would be an appreciable performance boost by not calling that for each option change it makes perfect sense.

      I'm glad we're discussing more.

       
      • Mark Pazolli

        Mark Pazolli - 2006-06-24

        Yeah, I recognized that about 4 and I realize that it would have been difficult to determine which options need to call setNeedsDisplay and which options don't having not implemented the options yourself.

        Mark.

         
    • Mark Pazolli

      Mark Pazolli - 2006-06-26

      I made some changes for the 1024 x 768 screen resolution. One of them involved going back to the 512 x 384 default image size. Apart from looking good at 1024 x 768, this image size was chosen because it was the original screen size of the Mac 128K.

      Mark.

       
      • Stephen Siciliano

        The reason I had changed the default size to 600 by 400 was because it is a much more common resolution in the world of computing, so it made more sense than trying to emulate the resolution of the Mac 128K.

         

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.





No, thanks