Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:23:29AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> > Thinking a bit more about it, maybe the code could be arranged such that
> > to not have hardcoded the normal size. Say we look at the size of a
> > particular icon and then set normalIconSize accor
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:23:29AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> Thinking a bit more about it, maybe the code could be arranged such that
> to not have hardcoded the normal size. Say we look at the size of a
> particular icon and then set normalIconSize according to its size. In this
> way, an
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:15:01AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> Well, I disagree on both the move to 22x22 standard size and the new
> proposed icons. As it seems everyone else is fine with both issues, I will
> arrange to have my personal copy with 20x20 icons whose look is as in the
> attac
Rob Oakes wrote:
> > can somebody post list of layout changes so we can see whether there
> > is consensus about them?
>
> Here is the toolbars file I put together (or, at least the one I use).
>
> This post from the original UI discussion has the rationale for the
> layout:
>
> http://www.mail
Rob Oakes wrote:
>
> > can somebody post list of layout changes so we can see whether there
> > is consensus about them?
>
> Here is the toolbars file I put together (or, at least the one I use).
i meant list of changes or screenshot, so we have it at this place.
pavel
> can somebody post list of layout changes so we can see whether there
> is consensus about them?
Here is the toolbars file I put together (or, at least the one I use).
This post from the original UI discussion has the rationale for the layout:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.o
Joost Verburg wrote:
> "Edwin Leuven" wrote in message
> news:aanlktikf5+pazt7uj+cga+wkt1kj+3hpsc_xfpkkg...@mail.gmail.com...
>> imo, 4 good reasons to go for it now
>
> I agree. Updating the icons and toolbar together makes much more sense.
> If we put it in now, there's enough time left for fin
Joost Verburg wrote:
> "Pavel Sanda" wrote in message
> news:20110319155427.gd25...@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz...
>> ok, so at this moment we know the new default is going to be oxygen.
>
> Should I upload the new icons?
the question is about location in the tree if we are going to have
more sets.
"Edwin Leuven" wrote in message
news:aanlktikf5+pazt7uj+cga+wkt1kj+3hpsc_xfpkkg...@mail.gmail.com...
imo, 4 good reasons to go for it now
I agree. Updating the icons and toolbar together makes much more sense.
If we put it in now, there's enough time left for fine tuning.
Joost
Georg Baum wrote:
> I personally like the new toolbars much better
1. my guess is that most of us like it much better
2. moreover, doing it now will give us real feedback to tweak it
3. we don't need major releases to update the toolbar layout
4. and 2.0 introduces many new features so timing
"Pavel Sanda" wrote in message
news:20110319155427.gd25...@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz...
ok, so at this moment we know the new default is going to be oxygen.
Should I upload the new icons?
Joost
> Edwin, can you share the current state of art of libre office icons?
> i dont remember how much remained to be done.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/359550/images.zip
ed.
Georg Baum wrote:
> > Me. This will end up like the "classic.ui" thing which is more or less
> > unmaintained.
>
> If that is really the case they could be removed again. I liked the idea of
> treating them like translations: If an icon set is too incomplete it gets
> removed. As long as Pavel a
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> 1. new layout was proposed by Rob. who agrees/disagrees with this?
>
> I think it needs very careful auditing with regard to different workflow
> scenarios. This has not happened yet, so I am against putting it in now.
While I personally like the
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> now means "right now" or for 2.0?
For 2.0.
> what you mean by auditing? you must perfectly know that there was never any
> deep auditing of LyX UI and we have no ui professionals among devs - this
> is effectively equivalent to saying no ;)
IMHO this comes too late for 2.0.
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > 1. new layout was proposed by Rob. who agrees/disagrees with this?
>
> I think it needs very careful auditing with regard to different workflow
> scenarios. This has not happened yet, so I am against putting it in now.
now means "right now" or f
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> 1. new layout was proposed by Rob. who agrees/disagrees with this?
I think it needs very careful auditing with regard to different workflow
scenarios. This has not happened yet, so I am against putting it in now.
> 2. some people won't be happy with icons change and there wa
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> i did not manage to find the svg sources, and don't have the time to
> fi ish this on my own
>
> imo we should give lyx a facelift with the oxygen icons and i also
> think rob's new toolbar layout is a good idea
ok, so at this moment we know the new default is going to be ox
i did not manage to find the svg sources, and don't have the time to
fi ish this on my own
imo we should give lyx a facelift with the oxygen icons and i also
think rob's new toolbar layout is a good idea
ed.
On 2011-03-19, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>>
19 matches
Mail list logo
