2017-07-31 18:24 GMT+09:00 Simon Lees <sfl...@suse.de>: > > > On 31/07/17 18:23, Jean-Philippe André wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > I was talking with Sanghyeon last week and realized that our use of > > Efl.Orientation (interface) and Efl.Orient (enum) for UI elements did not > > actually make perfect sense: > > > > 1. UI objects tend to have a default direction which is more like > > "downwards" or "to the right". Not UP (which is orientation 0) > > > > 2. UI objects tend to be either horizontal or vertical, not necessarily > > right/left/up/down > > > > 3. The degree value (0, 90, 180, 270) is not necessarily meaningful as > > we're not rotating the objects, just defining a general direction in > which > > they work. > > > > > > Are there any objections into splitting Orientation (for images, video > and > > probably the window itself, ...) and something like Direction (for UI > > widgets, like box, panes, etc...)? > > > > > > TIA, > > > > Just remember for Right to Left languages UI elements that would > normally be on the Left end up on the Right so left and right isn't > really the best language either I think Qt uses something like Leading > and Trailing for stuff that swaps properly for right to left and Left > and Right if you wanted it fixed. I don't remember how well elm handles > that though. > > Very good point. I'll check what conventions are used elsewhere. Thanks,
-- Jean-Philippe André ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
