KHTML-Patch - show frame around not-yet-loaded images

[Helge Deller]

On Wednesday 15 December 2004 13:48, Ismail Donmez wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 December 2004 14:42, Ismail Donmez wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 December 2004 14:08, Ismail Donmez wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 15 December 2004 14:00, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > > > You're actually right. Google didn't reveal anything interesting either
> > > > pro or contra though.
> > >
> > > Frames around waiting-to-be loaded images look very ugly with sites with
> > > lot of pics ( like Google Image Search ) . I didn't test the patch but I
> > > am not really into this.
> >
> > I tested the Germain's version of the patch and its much better than
> > IE/Firefox's frame thing. But it looks bad when drawn for small images.
> > Maybe do not show frames for small images like smaller than 50x50 ?
> >
> 
> Put up an image @ http://img157.exs.cx/img157/8095/frames7hl.png if you want 
> to see how it looks. The frames over search box doesn't look that good 
> because there are lots of frames together. But don't think there is an easy 
> solution to make them look better.

The main intention of this patch has been, to show the user that "something" still is going to be loaded exactly in "this area".
So, personally I think it's good if even small regions are shown with frames, and I think it should be turned on by default.
If the serving server or connection is slow you will "see" the progress at visible regions instead of some suddenly "popping up" images at some new not-yet-known positions.
If the serving server is fast, you won't notice the frames anyway.

So IMHO it's not about to make the frames look nicer (e.g. by reducing the minimum size to 50x50 or something), but instead tell the user: "Look, here is something which is planned to show up soon and Konqui is just waiting for that picture to be delivered".

On Wednesday 15 December 2004 11:50, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> in what scenarios is this new behaviour worse than the current behaviour?
> i ask because if it's generally better then why make it configurable?

Maybe it depends on how you define the word "worse" in this context...?
For me the new behaviour isn't worse - IMHO it's even better. 
But as far as I read the thread until now only one person thinks the new behaviour is ugly. If we keep in the configuration option (not hidden) those people can at least turn the feature off if they like to.

So I still would like to propose the patch as it currently is (of course with Germain's changes to the patch to show a solid frame applied).

Helge