[Bug 160529] Inconsistency on color schemas on each language

[Anders Lund]

On Wednesday 16 April 2008, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Anders Lund wrote:
> > This text should stand out, making the user aware that the text is
> > special. I believe that if you want subtle difference, you should be able
> > to, by selecting a color scheme that provides that quality. I just don't
> > think that the difference between 'normal text' and 'active text' should
> > be subtle pr default, which seems to be the case.
>
> So... which color scheme exactly are you looking at? (Or am I misreading
> something in the above?) In Oxygen color scheme, ActiveText is bright
> pink. I'd say that's notably different from the near-black NormalText.

I didn't check, and didn't change it in this case. I assume oxygen, the 
activetext being magentaish supports that if I am not mistaken.

I do not say that activetext does not differ from normaltext, I say it is not 
standing out from a normaltext surrounding, and I believe that is wrong.

> > On Tuesday 15 April 2008, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> At any rate, FooText on FooBackground (except where Foo == Normal) is
> >> guaranteed to be the worst contrast of any combination.
> >
> > Meaning, they are not meant to be used togeather.
>
> Not so much that, as that you're by definition ALWAYS reducing the
> contrast between background and text. While this is likely to be true in
> many cases for other combinations, it may not be, whereas FooText
> against FooBackground will always have less contrast than FooText
> against NormalBackground.

In a way, that is just too bad.

> But ideally they should be usable together. I agree that the current
> situation is that FooBackground tends to reduce the contrast too much,
> hence the patch I posted last night.

I understand that, and while it's working around the problem, it definately 
limits the usefullness of activebackground, though in the case of the word 
completion it is not very important. But where is a background that is so 
close to the default make much sense?

> >> As a side note, these colors really ought to be in katepart's scheme.
> >> The KCS colors are good in that they are supposed to be legible,
> >> accessible, etc. (problems in that department would be KCS's fault and
> >> not katepart's fault), but they may bear no resemblance to katepart's
> >> color scheme, which potentially is completely unrelated to the system
> >> color scheme.
> >
> > I was almost required to use colors from the kde color scheme a while
> > ago, by you in fact IIRC.
>
> Maybe :-). And the default *should* use the color scheme (as opposed to
> hardcoded defaults), but in this instance being able to override that I
> think would be OK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but has this color ever been
> configurable in the past?

Up to now, the word completion is a plugin (the configurability of the colors 
would not be with the othre colors => yelling usability experts in the far 
horizon), and the ability to color the inserted text is new to kde 4, so I 
cared more about having it at all than making it configurable.

> Anyway, I don't think this is of high importance; using the system
> scheme instead of kate's scheme might look out of place, but should
> never present a u7y/a11y problem. So it's not a big deal :-).
>
> > The text inserted in the way we discuss here also doe not have to do with
> > kates highlight, and I used a background as well as a foreground to
> > guarantee that the text would be readable, and the activetext colors as
> > that is what that text is: if you pres the shortcut that lead to the
> > insertion, it will change, if you leave it the style is given back to
> > katepart. In my understanding, the active text should stand out and be
> > clearly readable, as it is where the user must point his attention.
> > Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting it should use "normal"
> kate colors, just that making these colors part of kate's scheme,
> defaulting to what they are currently, IMO could make sense for users
> whose kate scheme is significantly different from the system scheme
> (i.e. me ;-) ).
>
> > Suggestion for the default color scheme:
> > * Do not have a subtle difference in this case.
>
> See my first comment in this message. Basically, I think I am confused
> what is the problem :-).

The concept of marking an active element should be a *highlight*, not a 
(lowlight). It is a philosophical issue, as well as a practical issue.

> > General suggestion:
> > * FooText|FooBackground should provide a style with normal contrast.
>
> Agreed. The patch I previously posted should help with this quite a bit
> (though FooBackground is now in general more subtly different from
> NormalBackground). Beyond that, it's a matter of the color scheme having
> suitable FooText colors.

Yay! :-)

-- 
Anders

www: http://www.alweb.dk
jabber: anderslund at jabber.dk