hpereiradacosta added a comment.
I fear there is still some misunderstanding here. Maybe it is due to the
original animation send for the other modification.
Maybe to make it clear to colomar:
for a vertical scrollbar, the current animation does _not_ change the width
of the scrollbar. The only thing it does is to make the scrollbar "groove"
below it (the grey area that indicates the range along which the handle can
move) appear gradually.
The other dimension is unchanged. (and the hit area is unchanged too)
Consequently, changes on the groove visibility and on the scrollbar width, to
me at least, are completely uncorrelated.
I think this is why Marco wanted two options from the beginning, and I was
arguing with either two or no option (but certainly not "one" option)
Now the current situation, for which both the animation (the appearance of
the groove) and the width of the scrollbar are controlled by the "enable
animation" option, indeed sounds quite like magic to me (why would animations
control the width of an object ?). I don't think this is satisfactory. Options
must do what they are supposed to.
So (and sorry for all the back and forth). I would make the "enable
animation" option control *only* whether the groove fades-in and out on
mouse-over, or is permanently drawn.
For the scrollbar width: either we have a separate option for that ("use thin
scrollbars"), or we make the thin scrollbar the one and only scrollbar design.
(And I would advocate for the second solution, keeping the full scrollbar width
- including the emty sides- unchanged, as well as the corresponding hit area).
REPOSITORY
rBREEZE Breeze
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D3210
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.kde.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: mart, #plasma, #vdg, hpereiradacosta
Cc: colomar, alex-l, plasma-devel, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg,
abetts, sebas
