On 5 Aug 2009, at 22:36, Luca Ferretti wrote:
May I ask to consider the option to revert to previous "text-below-
icon"
default? Or is this now an irreversible change?
Thomas indicated that the change would be for a trial period to gauge
the response, so keep the feedback coming, I guess--
Il giorno mer, 29/07/2009 alle 14.38 +0100, Thomas Wood ha scritto:
> PLEASE TRY THIS OPTION BEFORE YOU COMMENT - A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOT
> REALISE THAT ONLY SOME TOOLBAR BUTTONS GET LABELS IN THIS MODE.
>
> Therefore, I would like to propose a trial period with this setting set
> to the new value
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 10:09 +, Reinout van Schouwen wrote:
> hi Shaun,
>
> Shaun McCance gnome.org> writes:
>
> > There's quite a bit of inconsistency for common toolbar
> > items: New, Open, Save, Back, etc. Personally, the big
> > reason I don't use text beside icons is that the text
> >
hi Shaun,
Shaun McCance gnome.org> writes:
> There's quite a bit of inconsistency for common toolbar
> items: New, Open, Save, Back, etc. Personally, the big
> reason I don't use text beside icons is that the text
> on the Back button in Epiphany annoys me.
But I hope you'll agree that if ther
2009/7/29 Thomas Wood :
> Hi folks,
>
> We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
> tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
> reasoning).
This could be a little off topic here, but I'm not subscribed to
gnome-cc, so please forgive me.
Readin
Thomas Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 15:06 +, Stef Walter wrote:
>> Thomas Wood wrote:
>>> We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
>>> tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
>>> reasoning).
>> How will we enable 'Editable menu sho
On 29 Jul 2009, at 17:41, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
The is-important property was not available in the customized
toolbar editor
before 3.6, but now all the "general" properties are there for all
items instead of a few cherry picked properties.
That's good to hear, thanks.
Cheeri,
Calum.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Calum Benson wrote:
[...]
> IIRC Glade's toolbar editor never used to allow developers to set either of
> these properties for any given toolbar button, which didn't help. I don't
> know if that's changed in the past six months or so -- if not, it would be
> good
Karl Lattimer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 10:41 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Thomas Wood wrote:
Hi folks,
We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
reasoni
On 29 Jul 2009, at 15:47, Karl Lattimer wrote:
Calum, is there any chance you can provide a copy of Sun's findings
WRT
to this reversion? It would of course be useful to understand the
actual
reasoning made.
The evidence was largely anecdotal, but some of it is captured in this
bug rep
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 15:06 +, Stef Walter wrote:
> Thomas Wood wrote:
> > We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
> > tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
> > reasoning).
>
> How will we enable 'Editable menu shortcut keys'?
Hopefu
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 11:17 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 14:50 +0100, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> > The only thing that bugs me about this option is the new button in
> > evolution. This should be more like the open button in gedit.
>
> Evolution's New button will use GtkMenuToo
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 14:50 +0100, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> The only thing that bugs me about this option is the new button in
> evolution. This should be more like the open button in gedit.
Evolution's New button will use GtkMenuToolButton once we rid ourselves
of BonoboUI. I'm finishing up that b
Thomas Wood wrote:
> We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
> tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
> reasoning).
How will we enable 'Editable menu shortcut keys'?
> However, before we do so, we would like to ensure the the defaults are
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 10:27 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
> On 07/29/2009 09:51 AM, Johannes Schmid wrote:
> > Hmm, yes that definitely looks different than I expected. I am not
> > entirely sure though if it makes sense to have labels in the toolbar at
> > all because it would be way better if icons w
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 10:41 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Thomas Wood wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
> > tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
> > reasoning).
> >
> >
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 10:41 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> While I am all for dropping the interface tab, I think it is silly to
> ignore the results of distros which have already tried this change and
> found it to not work.
The problem was that several apps did not implement it properly. This i
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Thomas Wood wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
> tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
> reasoning).
>
> However, before we do so, we would like to ensure the the defaults are
>
> I don't want to bike shed this, but it always struck
> me that one of the advantages of icons in menus is
> that they can help you associate an icon with text,
> thereby helping you learn the toolbar. But this is
> pure conjecture on my part. I don't have any real
> data to back that up.
It's
On 07/29/2009 09:51 AM, Johannes Schmid wrote:
> Hmm, yes that definitely looks different than I expected. I am not
> entirely sure though if it makes sense to have labels in the toolbar at
> all because it would be way better if icons would be self-explaining.
Right. The idea isn't "label the con
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 14:38 +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
> tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
> reasoning).
>
> However, before we do so, we would like to ensure the the defaults ar
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 15:51 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
> > PLEASE TRY THIS OPTION BEFORE YOU COMMENT - A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOT
> > REALISE THAT ONLY SOME TOOLBAR BUTTONS GET LABELS IN THIS MODE.
>
> Hmm, yes that definitely looks different than I expected.
And just to help anyone who doesn't ha
Hi,
Le mercredi 29 juillet 2009, à 14:38 +0100, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> PLEASE TRY THIS OPTION BEFORE YOU COMMENT - A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOT
> REALISE THAT ONLY SOME TOOLBAR BUTTONS GET LABELS IN THIS MODE.
Heh ;-)
(I like this style, btw)
> Therefore, I would like to propose a trial period with t
Hi!
> PLEASE TRY THIS OPTION BEFORE YOU COMMENT - A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOT
> REALISE THAT ONLY SOME TOOLBAR BUTTONS GET LABELS IN THIS MODE.
Hmm, yes that definitely looks different than I expected. I am not
entirely sure though if it makes sense to have labels in the toolbar at
all because it wou
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 14:38 +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
> tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
> reasoning).
>
> However, before we do so, we would like to ensure the the defaults ar
Hi folks,
We've had a discussion on gnomecc list about removing the "Interface"
tab from the appearance capplet (see discussion¹ in the archive for
reasoning).
However, before we do so, we would like to ensure the the defaults are
correct. The main reason for the tab being there at all is because
26 matches
Mail list logo
