On Saturday 11 October 2008, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Well, the main thing I'd likely be interested in is integration with
> KDE's color scheme. (I'd also like to see Qt pick up more of it, but
> that seems unlikely, at least in the short term.)

This is one I don't really know much about in practice, but part of the theory 
behind Qt4 was that it was supposed to pick up more of the look and feel of 
wherever it was, and do a better job of blending than Qt3 did.

Back when I hung out on Ubuntu Studio Users, there was a large and vocal 
faction that really seemed eager to see a pure Qt4 Rosegarden, because it 
would blend in more seamlessly with their favorite desktop.

As far as that goes, I've had a pet idea for a long time to follow the 
Hydrogen model, and just define our own look and feel.  They exercise a high 
degree of control over their own colors, buttons, and pretty well everything 
except the main window decorations, and they don't have to worry about 
lookind different here there or anywhere.  That kind of idea could work if we 
came up with a universally acceptable look, and all of this runs directly 
counter to your wanting to make an effort to pull our colors from KDE4 if 
it's running.

Pulling our colors from KDE seems to be the current state of affairs, and I've 
seen this as a mixed bag over the years.  I take more screenshots than 
anybody, and having the look of my Rosegarden vary with my mood on a given 
day does pose minor but irritating problems for me that probably wouldn't 
affect ordinary users.  Just because I'm not an ordinary user though, I still 
vote in favor of making my own job as easy as possible.  :)

Another issue is with our black icons.  We have a lot of black icons, and 
they're invisible against black backgrounds.  Users can pick black 
backgrounds, and make our icons invisible.  We've never been able to come up 
with a decent solution for that in terms of tweaking the icon set, and 
controlling everything about our own presentation could definitely be a 
solution.

> But there are other 
> possibilities; imagine opening a document with a few staves of music and
> clicking on it, and up pops RG!

Can you explain this in more detail?  I don't follow.

> There's also little things, like getting Oxygen (or whatever theme is in
> use) icons cheaply, KDE standard actions, etc.

One complication to think about in all of that is that if we're even primarily 
a Qt application, we have to do all of that sort of thing one way, and if 
we're a KDE application, we have to do it another, different way.  One of the 
advantages Chris and others are advocating for this switch is that we get to 
bundle all of our resources in one place, and we no longer have to deal with 
issues like SuSE installs our help in some stupid place for a mysterious 
reason, and so forth.

-- 
D. Michael McIntyre 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
[email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

Reply via email to