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

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: custom header view
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2003-09-07 21:52:51
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Saturday 06 September 2003 01:28, Klas Kalass wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 2. September 2003 22:03 schrieb Aaron J. Seigo:
> > On Friday 29 August 2003 05:28, Klas Kalass wrote:
> > > I made a patch to make the visible header fields in the reader
> > > configurable. The patch is attached and screenshots can be found
> > > at http://www.kalass.de/kmail/index.html
> >
> > i just compiled it and have tried it out... i haven't looked at the
> > code in detail yet (just skimmed through it), so i won't comment on
> > that (yet =) ...
> >
> > first, this is great ... i think it makes a lot of sense as a
> > mechanism ... personally, i'd propose that this feature (which is
> > on the feature list, btw) is polished up and the other header
> > styles removed from the code as they are then unecessary ... this
> > would get rid of the View -> Headers submenu as an extra bonus... i
> > think there's a comment in your patch to a similar affect =)

I don't agree with Aaron that the other header styles are unnecessary. 
The important difference between the different header styles is 
actually the appearance of the header and not the fact that some styles 
show more information than other styles.

OTOH, I think we can probably reduce the choice to a "plain" style (like 
the currently used "standard" or "long") and a "fancy" style. We don't 
need a "custom" style. Both, the "plain" and the "fancy" style should 
be customizable.
Maybe we should also keep the "brief" style because else some users 
might be pissed if it's gone.

> > some comments on the interface:
> >
> > "More..." should perhaps be "More headers..." and aligned with the
> > header data rather than the header titles, e.g.:
> >
> > Date: 2003 05:28:31
> >        More headers...
>
> What is the general opinion on this? I will change it when there is a
> consensus.

Could you please create two screenshots. I don't have the time (read: 
I'm too lazy) to hack the code myself just in order to compare what 
looks better.

BTW, the "More headers..." should be in a much smaller size than the 
normal font size so that it's not too obtrusive.

> > the checkbox icon for adding a header isn't very intuitive, as you
> > noted. using some simple text such as "Always show: " might help...
> > or perhaps have that as a header and use checkboxes to mark which
> > ones to always show (don't know how easy / possible it is to use
> > form elements in the readerwin, though)...

Using forms in messages is currently impossible (to the best of my 
knowledge).

> > "go back" is a bit misleading, since one isn't really "going back"
> > =) if one uses "More headers..." then perhaps "go back" could
> > become "Fewer headers..." or "Less headers..." or "Collapse
> > headers..."
>
> Well, blame Ralf Nolden for that - Originally I had simply "less" and
> he complained about it, so I changed it to "go back" to make him
> happy. Personally I don't care, as long as I get reasonably backed
> arguments I will change it to anything ;-)

I agree with Aaron that "go back" is bad wording. I propose something 
like "Show only selected headers".

> > also, it seems just by looking at it in usage that it redisplays
> > the whole email whenever a header edit link is clicked (via a call
> > to updateReaderwin ()) ... perhaps it would be better to provide a
> > named div in the headers area and simply edit that section of the
> > HTML directly, allowing KHTML to just rerender that section rather
> > than the whole readerwindow. this would decrease flicker, increase
> > responsiveness and make a huge difference if you have a large
> > attachment being viewed inline or some other part of the mail
> > display process requires a lot of processing...
>
> I am not sure if that is possible - I think I would need to alter the
> dom tree which is displayed by khtml for that, don't I? I don't have
> the code here at the moment so I don't know if I could access it
> without doing hacks.

It would be cool if you would try what Aaron wrote (in the message to 
the mailing list that he didn't CC to you).

> At N7H I got positive feedback from Don, Ingo, Till and Zack, but I
> would especially like to hear comments from Marc because my code is
> based on his work - so what do you think, Marc?

Don't expect a quick answer from Marc. He's busy writing his diploma 
thesis which needs to be finished next week or so.

Regards,
Ingo

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
KMail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail


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