On 8/4/11 13:30, Jasper van de Gronde wrote:
On 2011-04-08 12:07, Andrew wrote:
Okay so after previous feedback, that the comboboxes for the fill type and fill rule were not optimal (i.e. it is quicker to click a button than select something from a combobox), I have ammended the mockups, adding back in the buttons.
I also corrected some padding in places, where I seem to have gone a bit mad with it :)
Please see the two mockups here http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Fill_and_Stroke_Dialog_Re-Design#My_...
Again I really do welcome feedback, positive or negative :)
Esthetically I prefer the old (non-bevelled) "buttons" for selecting the fill type and rule (the bevels make it look a bit crowded, as there are so many options), but other than that I have no complaints and would absolutely love to see this happen.
a) flat buttons 1+ on using flat icons and not 'regular' buttons for the fill/stroke types (I guess it would not be in accordance to the Gnome HIG? ;) ). These types of flat buttons are used in other places of the GUI as well, e.g. in the 'Align & Distribute' dialog.
b) sliders vs spinboxes I'm not sure about removing the sliders for opacity and blur (the extension dialogs recently got a new widget to alternatively display sliders in addition to spinboxes). Many users seem to appreciate sliders if values don't need to be set to precise values but freely adjusted to achieve a visually pleasing result (technical vs artistic drawing?).
c) window decoration Getting rid of the standard GTK Window Bar and replacing it with a custom one: wouldn't this either have to be done for all dockable dialogs (once all or most of them have been made dockable, a feature repeatedly requested by Inkscape users), instead of creating a single exception how a floating dialog (which is docked with default settings) looks? Also, does a custom solution work well with different window managers (and on other platforms, e.g. those which don't use the X11 backend of GTK+)?
d) minimal dialog width Unrelated (since it was not mentioned in the redesign proposal) question (but possibly with some relevance when refactoring dialogs?): What does or should determine the overall minimal (or default) width of the dialog? At the moment the length of the (translated) strings of the labels will considerably affect the minimal or default width, e.g. - the labels of the notebook tabs at the top as seen in this screenshot [1] from the inkscape-devel archives [2] (has improved since) - the labels of the various options in the 'Stroke style' tab Test yourself with e.g. 'German' as UI language: the labels in the 'Stroke style' tab will extend the overall minimal width of the dialog unproportionally IMHO. - names of custom patterns or markers seen e.g. with SVG files created by third-party applications [1] Could this be handled differently in how the dialog is coded, or - with regard to the translations - is it completely up to the translators?
~suv
[1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1047321/inkscape/fat_ui.png [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.graphics.inkscape.devel/30362 [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/596842/+attachment/1432106/+files/SequenceFlowDefault.svg