Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> The manuals mostly uses InsetInfo for the icons so they will get updated
> automatically...
BTW some icons which are not bound to lfuns cannot be represented by InsetInfo
AFAICS. E.g. view-others.
Jürgen
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:06:26PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 25/03/11 21:48, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> >>No problems here. Did you try a clean user directory? Perhaps
> >>there's still some session info left.
> >
> >Nope, no changes moving away the user dir and letting LyX recrea
Le 25/03/11 21:48, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
No problems here. Did you try a clean user directory? Perhaps
there's still some session info left.
Nope, no changes moving away the user dir and letting LyX recreate it.
This occurs when launching LyX without any document open, otherwise
it seems
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > It uses also screenshots. Actually, this whole icon set discussion was
> > the reason why I did not yet start to document the default output format
> > and master view/update features. Since the UG uses a screenshot of the
> > current view/update toolbar.
>
> This one
On 26/03/2011 09:58, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
The manuals mostly uses InsetInfo for the icons so they will get updated
automatically...
It uses also screenshots. Actually, this whole icon set discussion was the
reason why I did not yet start to document the default out
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> The manuals mostly uses InsetInfo for the icons so they will get updated
> automatically...
It uses also screenshots. Actually, this whole icon set discussion was the
reason why I did not yet start to document the default output format and
master view/update features.
On 25/03/2011 21:42, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:46:08PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
"Enrico Forestieri" wrote in message
news:20110325143448.ge29...@sirio.sssup.it...
I don't agree. As you can see, additional icon sets may simply subsitute
some icons. If an icon is mi
OK, it seems most of us think that the toolbar changes are a bit too
sensitive. Even Joost agrees that there is some post-2.0 code needed.
And I tend to agree that we shouldn't change the UI twice.
On the other hand. I really like the new Libre icons, I would like to
have them as the default.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:33:22PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> "Enrico Forestieri" wrote in message
> news:20110325162427.gn29...@sirio.sssup.it...
> >Hmmm... the artifacts are now gone, but the toolbars are still
> >unrensposive.
>
> No problems here. Did you try a clean user directory? Perha
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:46:08PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> "Enrico Forestieri" wrote in message
> news:20110325143448.ge29...@sirio.sssup.it...
> >I don't agree. As you can see, additional icon sets may simply subsitute
> >some icons. If an icon is missing, the one from the default set will
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Why is this post-2.0 stuff. This is not so difficult ?
It's not a matter of difficulty. It's a matter of sane release principles. My
point is that we should respect the release cycles, and a release candidate is
a release candidate.
UI changes might look "trivia
"Vincent van Ravesteijn" wrote in message
news:4d8cd11d.8000...@lyx.org...
Why is this post-2.0 stuff. This is not so difficult ?
I think Jurgen's concern is the RC status.
As a final suggestion for 2.0: Maybe the UI file could be linked to an
icon directory (instead of the preferences which
Now having the same item twice (even if one toolbar can be disabled) is
*really* bad UI design. A better idea would be to introduce OptItem for the
toolbar to let the master-buffer-* items disappear if the document in question
is no child.
But this is all post-2.0 stuff.
Why is this post-2.0
"Jürgen Spitzmüller" wrote in message
news:201103251812.22547.sp...@lyx.org...
The whole thing is not for 2.0. Bad luck. People had two years time to
come up
with UI proposals.
Perhaps it's better to postpone all the UI stuff to a future release.
It seems like discussions with a bit of contro
Joost Verburg wrote:
> The alternative is to keep the current ad-hoc design with e.g. thesaurus
> next to paragraphs settings.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm opting for.
> New code will allow for more improvements, however that's definitely is
> not for 2.0.
The whole thing is not for 2.0. Bad l
"Jürgen Spitzmüller" wrote in message
news:201103251748.53062.sp...@lyx.org...
Now having the same item twice (even if one toolbar can be disabled) is
*really* bad UI design. A better idea would be to introduce OptItem for
the
toolbar to let the master-buffer-* items disappear if the document i
Joost Verburg wrote:
> > Yep, that did the trick. However, it is going to surprise many people.
> > BTW, why the "View" button appears twice? Even if it is in two different
> > toolbars, they are the default ones.
>
> Because many users don't need the advanced view/update features.
> With the "Vie
"Enrico Forestieri" wrote in message
news:20110325143448.ge29...@sirio.sssup.it...
I don't agree. As you can see, additional icon sets may simply subsitute
some icons. If an icon is missing, the one from the default set will be
used. So, there's no maintaining burden as only those icons that don
"Enrico Forestieri" wrote in message
news:20110325162427.gn29...@sirio.sssup.it...
Hmmm... the artifacts are now gone, but the toolbars are still
unrensposive.
No problems here. Did you try a clean user directory? Perhaps there's still
some session info left.
Joost
"Enrico Forestieri" wrote in message
news:20110325161616.gm29...@sirio.sssup.it...
Yep, that did the trick. However, it is going to surprise many people.
BTW, why the "View" button appears twice? Even if it is in two different
toolbars, they are the default ones.
Because many users don't need
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:16:16PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 04:56:29PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> > "Enrico Forestieri" wrote in message
> > news:20110325142851.gd29...@sirio.sssup.it...
> > >On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 01:17:19PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> > >>W
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 04:56:29PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> "Enrico Forestieri" wrote in message
> news:20110325142851.gd29...@sirio.sssup.it...
> >On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 01:17:19PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> >>Why did you revert this? What was broken?
> >
> >See attached screen shot. Mor
"Enrico Forestieri" wrote in message
news:20110325142851.gd29...@sirio.sssup.it...
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 01:17:19PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
Why did you revert this? What was broken?
See attached screen shot. Moreover, the toolbars where unrensposive and
only through the main menu I coul
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 04:26:32PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > Why did you revert this? What was broken?
> >
> > See attached screen shot. Moreover, the toolbars where unrensposive and
> > only through the main menu I could open a new file.
>
> This is again
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > Why did you revert this? What was broken?
>
> See attached screen shot. Moreover, the toolbars where unrensposive and
> only through the main menu I could open a new file.
This is again the case here after r38046. Was the stdtoolbars.inc part of that
commit intention
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 02:00:07PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> I also just noticed that you designed a new icon set as well.
> If you're happy with the liber icons as default perhaps we should remove the
> "old" and "oxygen" icons so there's no need for switching code and multiple
> icon sets to
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 01:17:19PM +0100, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Why did you revert this? What was broken?
See attached screen shot. Moreover, the toolbars where unrensposive and
only through the main menu I could open a new file.
--
Enrico
<>
27 matches
Mail list logo
