Re: [sweep-devel] scheme editor committed to trunk

[pete s. <zen...@ze...>]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:44:49 +0100
Thorsten Wilms <t_...@fr...> wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:07 +0000, pete shorthose wrote:
> 
> > here's an action shot showing 3 schemes i added:
> >    
> >  http://www.zenadsl6252.zen.co.uk/scheme-editor.png
> 
> Nice!
> 
> Could you get rid of the border around the main area,

i needed that to group the edit widgets. but, given that the
general options didn't really belong directly in the editor 
and because the window was too large for 640x480, i've
put them in separate tabs. now if only i could
reconfigure the layout of that massive color selection
without rewriting the widget... :(

http://www.zenadsl6252.zen.co.uk/scheme-editor-r2.png
 
> the border that
> starts below "Colour source"

that's a notebook. i've disabled it's border now.

> and the frame around "Automatic scheme
> selection"?

i've left this for the moment. i think we should
really be consistent across sweep, and we aren't
at the moment. i like frames just fine but i'll
leave it up to Conrad as to whether i should eventually 
add them or yank them out elsewhere. 
i'm reluctant to remove something i like unless
it's mandated as part of a wider effort towards
consistency.
for example:
 new sample dialog uses frames
 device dialog doesn't
 plugin and save windows use frames  

> "Automatic scheme selection" should be bold like "Selected Theme", as
> it's the same level. "scheme" could be dropped from it.

well, the former is a widget name, highlighted only because the dialog
is very cluttered, the latter is a group name. 
currently we don't highlight any group names in sweep.
not that i've seen anyway. i'm happy to remove the
markup on "Selected Theme" if you don't think it
necessary.
generally speaking, i'm not happy with the layout and flow
of this dialog but i'm struggling to present so many options
is so tight a space without resorting to the
infinite popup dance of insanity.

> "scheme" could be dropped from it.

true. the meaning is probably apparent from the
subsequent option names. still, i'd prefer to
risk being harmlessly redundant than harmfully
ambiguous. if nothing else, it helps to give the
translators some context.

cheers,
pete