Le 16 sept. 2009 à 15:11, Alexander Larsson a écrit :
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.
Did anybody look at this historical bug report I gave ? Nautilus has a
history of changing this feature every once in a while and it disturbs
users either way.
What about transparent images, well I do have transparent images that
have content on the border and not having frames on it is just as bad
as having frames on images where there is no content on the border.
Can we please just stop switching this behavior on and off or make it
definitively togglable in gconf or something like this ?
--
Gilles Dartiguelongue
gilles.dartiguelon...@esiee.org
--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
