Nautilus should use a background by default
anivair at gmail.com
Tue Sep 26 17:35:59 BST 2006
Agreed. A default background would suck. Too much needless clutter and
candy for the sake of candy. it'll make us look like XP in no time.
On 9/26/06, René Oelke <oelke at jpk.com> wrote:
> David Prieto schrieb:
> > I'm not sure if there would really be any pros, I for once do it for the
> > eye candy. The naked folder is ugly IMO, a background is a way to
> > somehow dress it.
> I like the "naked folder". A clean, simple, white BG is enough. It's
> "reduced to the max" ;-)
> Generally a BG depends on the "content density" of a folder and how the
> content is shown in Nautilus. Imagine you have a list view. Lots of
> lines and lots of information. It's better to read on plain BG. Your
> example with the cover thumbnails is also a good reason to have no
> background. There are so much images that the presence of a BG is
> secondary. The focus lays on the content (i your case on the thumbs).
> How many folders do you have with no or less content?
> Perhaps it is worth to think about some "content-type dependent", plain
> and absolut placed symbols as a background. For example: If i put an
> audio cd in the cd-rom, the BG symbol could be a music or audio-like
> image in the bottom-right corner. The same with a DVD or plugged-in iPod
> (Didicam and so on). Or if you have a folder with lots of fotos, audios,
> video ...
> René Oelke
> Network & System Administrator
> JPK Instruments AG
> Bouchéstr. 12
> 12435 Berlin, Germany
> Tel: +49 30 5331 12070
> Fax: +49 30 5331 22555
> ubuntu-desktop mailing list
> ubuntu-desktop at lists.ubuntu.com
(cam # US2004122445)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-desktop