[PATCH] Standardize clocks config dialogs

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Monday 21 January 2008, Andre Magalhaes wrote:
> While I share your opinion regarding tabs, shouldn't we use the same
> layout we are using for the digital clock. Using groupboxes will make the
> widget to big vertically, especially if we add more options, what I believe
> will happen.
>
> What do you think?

i just realized one more reason we should probably not be using a tabwidget 
here:

other clocks may have an extensive set of their own options. the fuzzy clock 
is a good example of this. these would invariable need their own tab.

that means one of three scenarios:

The Good: we don't use a tab widget for the shared settings, the clock adds 
this widget to its own tab widget and we have two tabs.

The Bad: we use a tab widget for the shared settings, the clock adds more tabs 
for its own settings resulting in at least 3 tabs. the baby jesus whimpers a 
bit.

The Ugly: we use a tab widget for the shared settings, the clock creates its 
own tab widget and embeds the shared settings into its own tab widget and we 
have tabs-in-tabs. the baby jesus cries.

so not having tabs gives us the most flexibility and the greatest chance for a 
tab-coherent dialog. by making it hard for people to do the wrong thing, we 
increase the odds of them doing the right thing ;)

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

KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/panel-devel/attachments/20080122/c736b04f/attachment-0001.pgp