On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 15:02 +0200, Mark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Alexander Larsson <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 14:18 +0200, Mark wrote: > > > > Another alternative would be to frame the transparent icons after > > overlaying them on some background, but that would loose some of the > > information availible about the file (that its transparent), so this > > isn't really a great idea either. > > Oke, if you say so. I still don't agree on it but i guess my voice is > worth nothing since i'm not a nautilus dev. > But i hope for you and Jaap that people don't get confused by this > patch. But i bet that if someone out there is using nautilus 2.28 > (assuming it lands in there) when it's released and that someone has > both jpeg and png files in the same folder with a few that have > transparency you will start seeing bug reports about that.
I'm pretty sure some people will be confused by it, but i'm also sure that some people would be confused if we took the transparent image and made it non-transparent. There is not always a perfect solution for everyone. > Just look at this image to see what they might report: > http://img2.imagedash.com/2WLn.png i certainly would report that if i > didn't know about this patch. I don't think that looks to bad really. This: http://img2.imagedash.com/Pk2o.png looks far weirder. -- nautilus-list mailing list nautilus-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
