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

List:       kde-kimageshop
Subject:    Re: native KIS file format
From:       Tomas Furmonavicius <f1926 () kaunas ! aiva ! lt>
Date:       1999-08-06 15:44:55
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 06 Aug 1999, Torsten Rahn wrote:

> X was also known for various different unconsistent GUIs that don't deserve
> this  name and for being complicated. So WHAT?

Hmm. Both "standads" - Motif and OpenLook are more or less consistent.
And CDE for example isn't too complicated.
 
> > almost all X programs are designed for high resolutions.And KDE also
> > follows this tradition. Just look at the size of KWM's titlebar, KDE's
> 
> which is no advantage at all and should be changed if we want to attract more 
> users. 

Maybe.
 
>  > menu height. It's ~20 pixels in height (~10 in windows).  It shows,
> 
> ... these numbers are nonsense of course ....

Yup. You are right. I should either measure before wrighting or clean my
glases. 

So I measured Photshop's menu bar's height in windows - 17 pixels. 
KDE's menu's height on my PC - 28 pixels. Font sizes 9 ant 10 pixels.

> that KDE > _is_ oriented to high resolution systems (I've never saw a Sun
> workstation with > 14'' monitor).
> 
> But I saw enough people who want to run KDE on a 14" monitor or even do so. 

I use it on 14'' monitor too, 640x480 resolution. 
 
> > Linux users have some myths, like - Linux is faster, Linux uses less resources
> > then windows and so on. It's maybe true, while you are in the console mode.
> > But, please, don't compare windows (or OS/2, or MacOS) GUI with unix
> > console.
> 
> Why not?

Hmmm. How do you imagine CAD system in text mode ?
Visualisation software in text mode ?
And so on ...

As I wrote - it's possible to do more in GUI, than in textmode.

> > And again, IMPs are programs which needs high resolutions to work seriously.
> > I don't want KIS to be just one more icon editor.
> 
> Neither funny nor true. 

I'm sorry if this sounded as offense. 

>IMPs themselves usually should waste as less space
> as possible. If something  *needs* space on the screen then it should not be the
> program but the images itself that you work on. They are the reason for those 
> big screens that you  find when you do   professional work concerning graphics
> -- not the program itself.
> I don't buy a 21" monitor just to make it possible that the IMP wastes most of 
> the screen. I want to have as much space left for the images as possible! 
> And that's why trying to make KIS usable under 800x600 is a Good Thing (TM):

Nobody argues, that KIS should be usable under 800x600.
But my opinion is, that if KIS 's GUI will be very usable under 1024x768, it
_will be usable_ under 800x600.

Photshop for example is usable even under 640x480, though working in such mode
means either learning more keyboard shortcuts and messing with both keyboard
and mouse, which I find disturbing, or constantly closing - restoring these
nice tabed control dialogs, which I wanted to see in KIS.

And, of course, full screen mode can be very handy sometimes.

> You give those people who lack better hardware at least the chance to use it.
> And you have well-optimized well-thought-through dialog-boxes which don't 
> waste space that you could use for your images.

These dialog boxes are realized more or less succesfuly in Photoshop. Though,
in my opinion such boxes could be docked like toolbars, and not floating.

> Come on, this is just a matter of thinking about a better professional dialog
> layout so why  shouldn't we try to aim  800x600pixel-usabilty as well?

Yup. In photoshop these dialog boxes are very compact. Trying to reduce the
size more could lead to loss of functionality.

Tomas 

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