A look at GNOME 2.14, comparison to KDE

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Wednesday 22 February 2006 10:44, Leo Savernik wrote:
> This makes up for a blurry, not distinct, not clearly visually separable
> transition, causing the impression of a lack of polish.

well, i find most of our "must have a clear visual separation between every 
element" to be highly distasteful. it leaves us with dozens of 1px and 2px 
lines everywhere that look just awful. while a draftsman may appreciate the 
radical approach to delineation ;) , many (myself included) find it ugly.

but we're ok in this instance anyways because:

> I'll demonstrate the issue on the images you provided. Looking at
> http://bddf.ca/~aseigo/konqi_deframed3.png, you can see the status bar blur
> into the content area (attachment statusbar-blur.png).

this was due to my using lipstik rather than the default plastik for the 
widget style. i had turned off taskbar frames because our overuse of frames 
in some apps like konq made the removal of them nice. if you turn on 
statusbar frames it looks "proper" again.

here is the konqi_deframed3.png with the default plastik:

http://bddf.ca/~aseigo/konqi_deframed6.png

it looks similarly nice with lipstik with statusbar frames turned on. in fact, 
with "flat" headers in listpik, i think it looks even nicer than plastik 
since it makes the headers, which aren't the most informationally important 
part of the window (the file listing is), not as prominent.

> > > I suggest that we leave KDE 3.5 as is and finetune
> > > appearence for 4.0.
> >
> > sorry, i'm not ready to cop out and punt things out into the future like
> > this. i've watched us do this version after version in the past and have
> > realized that if you want to do something do it now. it's either a good
> > idea now or it's not a good idea ever.
>
> Well, my point is: Either you do the whole amount of work to make KDE
> really shine, or you leave it as is. Fixing one visual glitch by opening up
> another is not the way to enhance a stable release.

this is quite different than just saying "punt". and i'd much rather have a 
lesser visual defect than a greater one. this is not the same as writing code 
where "off by one" is still unacceptable ;)

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

Full time KDE developer sponsored by Trolltech (http://www.trolltech.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20060222/85feb40c/attachment.sig>