setup page icons

Bernd Pol bernd.pol at
Sun Jul 18 23:26:14 UTC 2004

On Sunday 18 July 2004 18:33, Jens Dagerbo wrote:
> On Sunday 18 July 2004 13:47, Tobias Gläßer wrote:
> > On So, 2004-07-18 at 12:29 +0200, Bernd Pol wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > although the icons finally are there in the setup select list, I
> > > really hate this design. It has a toyish appearance now, and
> > > worse yet, I have to scroll to get to a certain setup page low in
> > > the list.
> > >
> > > I definitely want the old decision tree design back (icons
> > > appendend to the names would be appreciated, of course). But it
> > > is more professional ui design to have the selection visible at
> > > on sight, without scrolling needs.
> > >
> > > BTW: The Code Snippets scissors icon is still missing.
> > >
> > > Have a nice day,
> > > Bernd
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree with your view!
> > The configuration dialog is really unintuitive at the moment and
> > your proposed solution would suit all people well, I think.
> >
> > Greetz...
> >
> > Tobias Gläßer
> I don't agree. (Surprise!) ;)
> The IconList approach has been in cvs for a month now. Waiting for
> the feature freeze to kick in to complain is not the best strategy if
> you want to affect anything.
This was coincidental. Sorry for this.
> It was discussed on #kdevelop before I committed. The only dissent at
> the time was voiced by Tobias, but he was in the minority.

It is really a pity that my phone connections don't allow me on IRC 
(slow analog modem connected to the family phone, argh). Nevertheless I 
did assume that there was some discussion, only that I never saw any of 
the arguments.
> The old design was nothing but a randomly ordered list ("decision
> tree" - wtf!?).
My fault :(, I did not remember the correct wording (wanted something 
about "selection" tree) -- but it is clear what was meant.
BTW, I did not like the random ordering as well.

> This is bad. With the IconList we're still showing 
> the settings pages in random order, but with the icons they are at
> least a bit quicker to spot. (That icons are faster recognized than
> words is afaik an accepted UI "truth".)
No argueing about this one.

> I disagree that the IconList 
> looks toyish.
It does in my opinion because those icons are far too prominent -- toys, 
as they look to me.

> If anything, the old look made us look toyish, or at 
> least unfinished (largely true).
I agree with "unfinished".
> The IconList makes us consistent with the Katepart settings page,
> that is typically in heavy use in KDevelop. We're also largely
> consistent with other KDE apps. Almost every large KDE app I looked
> at uses it: Katepart, Konqueror, KMail, Quanta, K3b, KWord (to name a
> few) all use the IconList.
This is a point here. Of course we should remain consistent with other 
> We're also not alone in forcing the user to scroll (Katepart,
> Konqueror) but this is the part of the design I don't like either.
Ah! We do agree on my main crititcs. ;)
> My 
> aim was to finish splitting out the optional plugins from the main
> settings dialogs before 3.1 and the IconList was part of the
> preparations. (I never found the time to finish this as it affected
> too large parts of KDevelop to be done properly in the given time.)
> This would make the dialog entries fewer and hopefully fit without
> the need to scroll. I hope to do this during the next development
> (3.2?) cycle.
I'm looking forward to it. :)
> Bottom line - I'm not going to revert it. For the above reasons, I
> would argue it would be a bad idea for someone else to do it too.

Allright. I did not want to start a flame war whatsoever.

If there were a compromise some time in the future, even an improvement, 
a carefully ordered list for instance, bearing icons (!) for easy 
recognition (but they should definitely be smaller, imho) I would be 
I only wanted to share my impression and that of a few other people I 
know. It is a matter of taste, basically, and there is more important 
stuff to be done.

> The 
> best thing to do now is to add the missing icons. Please help out.
Pity! I am not able to do that one...

Never trust a running program but always worship its makers.

More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list