Carlos: I guess it'd be better all around if you
specified and published at least some of your
priorities and anti-priorities. Also, set a
procedure for cases when there's a conflict on
what goes in and what doesn't.
I sincerely commend you picking up the project
maintenance when there was a dire need for that.
And I do not care much for the new features
alltogether. However, I can see, too, how folks
could feel uncomfortable with your stance on the
innovation. Nobody's really challenging your
authority and your credits. Just that you sound
a bit authoritarian here. Again, it's not what
you say, it's more how you say it. Why not try
to generate more positive feelings?
***
W/r to the documentation, I'd say a potential
user would initially want to know what one can
do (do well) with WindowMaker.
So, to enumerate some strong sides of
WindowMaker as I see those:
-is light-weight, instant start-up
-has usable configuration out-of-the-box
-has visual preferences editing application
out-of-the-box
-has visualised task switching out-of-the-box,
unlike many (all?) WMs
-has (rudimentary) visual launch list editing
out-of-the-box (I mean launched apps leaving
icons in dock)
-has some stylish and recognisable UI design
elements (checkboxes, dialogs' tabs' tabs,
radiobuttons, balloons, titlebar)
Big problems with WM:
- grossly outdated concept of paths management
(menu editor -> 'application to run' selector,
icons/pixmap search paths )
- rough, unpolished look in some parts of the UI
(fat scrollbars)
- no transparent background for icons? in 2013?
(yes, it might be emulated by setting screen
background and icon background to be the same,
but...)
- some functional elements (theming elements
selectors in main menu, 'run command' applet,
window attributes inspector) feel half-done,
even primitive
-Yury
On 11/14/2013 11:13 PM, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
...
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
