On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 02:58, Rick W. Chen wrote:
> On 06 Nov 2011 21:41 +0100, Bart Cerneels:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 13:29, Rick W. Chen wrote:
>> > On 06 Nov 2011 09:22 +0100, Bart Cerneels:
>> >> Micro option! And as far as I can tell because only one user
>> >> complained on the forums. Un
On 06 Nov 2011 21:41 +0100, Bart Cerneels:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 13:29, Rick W. Chen wrote:
> > On 06 Nov 2011 09:22 +0100, Bart Cerneels:
> >> Micro option! And as far as I can tell because only one user
> >> complained on the forums. Unless Rick has a personal preference.
> >> Still, we need
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 13:29, Rick W. Chen wrote:
> On 06 Nov 2011 09:22 +0100, Bart Cerneels:
>> Micro option! And as far as I can tell because only one user
>> complained on the forums. Unless Rick has a personal preference.
>> Still, we need to be very hesitant to add micro options.
>>
>> The a
On 06 Nov 2011 09:22 +0100, Bart Cerneels:
> Micro option! And as far as I can tell because only one user
> complained on the forums. Unless Rick has a personal preference.
> Still, we need to be very hesitant to add micro options.
>
> The arguments for having the backgrounds:
> - Reduces the "fie
Micro option! And as far as I can tell because only one user
complained on the forums. Unless Rick has a personal preference.
Still, we need to be very hesitant to add micro options.
The arguments for having the backgrounds:
- Reduces the "field of grey" effect when the browsers are empty.
- Gener
