On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:05:33PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > > > 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for > > > another year? > > > > I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. > > And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking > on LyX too long.
If I set the XForms widget colours to the light green that KLyX used to default to it looks very similar to that "modern" toolkit. So what am I missing? (the "Feel" of the menus is bad. Otherwise?) Maybe I'm not as fussy as some. "Function over form" that sort of thing. Maybe the rest of my desktop is a good indication: aterm with black backgrounds and yellow text (although shells on other computers are colour-coded but all are primary (ROYGBIV) colours on black), root window is solid black, WindowMaker dock is pale purple. Not much else on display: Opera-6tp2, Mozilla-0.9.7, xemacs-21.4.6 all with default colour/theme settings. As sexy toolkits go I liked the looks of Sun's HotJava browser which Mozilla is now copying to a certain extent. Can you point out any particular widget that causes your optic nerve distress? Any that make you twitch uncontrollably? The only thing LyX is missing, in terms of visual pleasantness IMHO, is anti-aliased text. > > > Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near > > > done. Oh well. > > > > The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big > > chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. > > I suppose we should make clearer the status of the non-dialog code. > Although it's not super-easy to estimate (I'd wager that XFormsView vs. > LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) Have to start somewhere. Allan. (ARRae)
