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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Minicli Polishing
From:       Nadeem Hasan <nhasan () nadmm ! com>
Date:       2002-09-14 22:33:08
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 14 September 2002 05:16 pm, Martijn Klingens wrote:
> See screenshot.
>
> While looking for uncommitted code in my CVS tree I found this little baby
> lying around. The diff is not attached because it's still chock-full of
> commented-out CVS merge conflicts that I have to resolve first, but it
> compiles and works for me already (tm). I guess that's what you get for not
> committing in half a year...
>
> Anyway, does anyone have a strong objection regarding this, or can I clean
> the code up and commit? If preferred I can also send the diff here first
> once it's cleaned up.

Looks good....Just what it needed.

> Two questions regarding this code:
>
> 1. Should QLabels with disabled buddies be disabled themselves too? The
> screenshot shows this in action, but the style guide is unclear. A quick
> chat with Waldo on IRC seemed to lean towards doing this, but a few more
> opinions are welcome.

AFAIK, most of KDE behaves this way. If the style guide is not explicit about
this, then it should be.

<snip>

> Does anyone have a better idea, since both the checkbox proxy and the
> hardcoded metrics have some serious associated downsides?

Do you think its worth this much pain just to get these labels to align
properly? In the scrren shot, Its ok as long as "Priority" and "Scheduler"
are aligned. Why do we need them to align with the checkbox label?

Cheers,
-- 
Nadeem Hasan
nhasan@nadmm.com
http://www.nadmm.com/


_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]