[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Support for animated icons (on mouseover)
From:       David Faure <david () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2002-01-17 13:22:31
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday 17 January 2002 14:12, Neil Stevens wrote:
> On Thursday January 17, 2002 04:58, David Faure wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 January 2002 13:50, Neil Stevens wrote:
> > > On Thursday January 17, 2002 04:09, Torsten Rahn wrote:
> > > > > If we do commit it - make sure to enable it to be turned off so we
> > > > > don't p*ss of too many users who hate this kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > > This is meant to be enabled by default. Otherwise people won't ever
> > > > see it. Of course it should be possible to set your eyecandy-level
> > > > low enough to make it disabled.
> > > > And of course we'll make the animations in a way that they won't be
> > > > offensive and annoying but rather decent and smooth instead.
> > >
> > > So much for making KDE 3 faster than KDE 2.
> >
> > Did you test the patch ?
> >
> > There's nothing in here that makes it slower. The animation is loaded on
> > demand, you can click the icon even if the animation is running....
> 
> Oh, right.  The patch adds an animation, but puts zero cost on the CPU or 
> RAM.  I guess I should test this magic patch, and see about applying its 
> behavior to other code.

No need to be ironic. I didn't say it didn't use the CPU while the animation 
was running (it's just about displaying 5 pixmaps btw, i.e. same as if you 
had 5 more files in the directory).
I said that this happens while the CPU isn't used by something else (in this 
process at least), and it doesn't slow the _user_ down - that was my main 
point.

> Seriously though, this patch does nothing useful.  It doesn't allow the 
> user to do anything faster, better, or easier.  It doesn't make KDE 
> runnable in more places, with less CPU, RAM, or disk space.  This behavior 
> falls into the same category as pseudo-transparency in menus or animated 
> combo boxes, yet those are defaulted off.  Why should this one be any 
> different.

I think the colors on the icons is useless too, pure eye-candy. Let's default 
to black and white icons, and let's put color as an option only.
(hey if you can be sacarstic, I can be too).

> If this sort of policy becomes normal, that pure bloat for looks is 
> defaulted on, then it'll give credibility to the common charge that KDE is 
> bloated.
I was expecting such reactions, and that's why I agree we have to make it 
configurable. Unlike tackat, I can conceive that a large category of users 
don't want such things ;)

However I would really appreciate if you would actually test the patch before 
commenting blindly on it.

-- 
David FAURE, david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~david, http://www.konqueror.org
KDE 3.0: Konquering the Desktops
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]