Behavior change in KPageDialog/KPageWidgetItem

[Matthias Kretz]

On Monday 01 October 2007, Anders Lund wrote:
> On Monday 01 October 2007, Adam Treat wrote:
> > Heh.  I've got your point.  A default widget to present will be fine.  In
> > fact, as sebas pointed out, treeview's are no longer recommended by our
> > HIG.   I'm going to see in the future about eliminating the treeview from
> > Kate altogether.
>
> Again, Kate shouldn't really be a KDE application, because it's
> configuration needs doesn't fit into the desire of KDE to become GNOME :S
>
> (joke aside, how do we create a configuration dialog that suits our needs
> without a tree view? we can't group all the configuration pages of katepart
> into tabs, nor those of kate...)

I also don't see the point in disallowing a tree. The purpose of the tree in 
comparison to a simple list is to add a logical grouping to the items so that 
it's easier to find what you're looking for. But I guess this discussion 
should take place on some usability list...

-- 
________________________________________________________
Matthias Kretz (Germany)                            <><
http://Vir.homelinux.org/
MatthiasKretz at gmx.net, kretz at kde.org,
Matthias.Kretz at urz.uni-heidelberg.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20071001/c33470eb/attachment.sig>