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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: While were making controversial suggestions... ;)
From:       Michael Matz <matz () ifh ! de>
Date:       2000-04-28 18:38:03
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Kurt Granroth wrote:
> The BeOS style titlebars are cute and the sliding bars are fun to show
> off.. but the style is by far the most impractial style of them all.

I use it every day (well, at least since it was introduced), and find it
not impractical. So at least it is impractical only _for you_.

> Say you have to windows that slightly overlap each other.  If the one
> on the left has focus, then the titlebar of the second app is totally
> obscured... if you want to move that window, it's a pain.

With click to focus you can click into the menu bar or the window itself,
with focus follow mouse you have no problem at all.

Now guess, why you can move the title bars. Exactly because, that if
windows overlap (even if they overlap totally), you can see and access
more than one title bar. It is a feature. Note that with unmovable title
bars and overlapping windows you have no simple mechanism to show the
obscured title bar.

It is not just a thing which is "fun to show".

> Also, the BeOS style titlebars do a terrible job of Fitts law :-)

You seem to be a great lover of fitts "law" ;-)

> They provide a very small target AND the target size is inconsistent.

That is true. So lets make the title bar the top half of the screen that
nobody can miss it :)

Seriously. Not everything should be large and the same size. It also
depends on how often you access the items in question. The title bar I
grab one time to move the window where I think it shall be, and then only
(sometimes) for activating inactive windows.

Please try to use that style some time before saying its doing a terrible
job, if your statements are true and if any law is applicable here. Or
simply say what your prefered style is, without bashing others.

> IMO, I think that either System or Laptop should be the default --
> probably System.

Yep, thats also a very nice one. (only the button size is not the same as
the other styles)

> Now both do have very small problems though: System should have a
> frame around the border just like Laptop, B II, and ModernSystem do.
> With the System style, the menus look like they are on *top* of the
> window... with the other three styles I named, the menus look like
> they are embedded in the window.  The latter looks a LOT better.
> 
> Laptop should have a smaller size grip (like the size of
> MondernSystem) and should allow you to resize the window on all of the

I think mosfet designed it in this way, because it's a _laptop_ style,
where this large handle makes sense.


Ciao,
Michael.

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