New panel size
jozmak at gmail.com
Sat Nov 10 16:46:13 UTC 2007
On Nov 10, 2007 5:28 AM, Jelle de Jong <jelledejong at powercraft.nl> wrote:
> Diego Ongaro wrote:
> > On 11/8/07, Radomir Dopieralski <xubuntu at sheep.art.pl> wrote:
> >> Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 06:34:05PM +0100:
> >> This is a little complicated.
> >> First of all, the Tango icons (it's not a name of any particular icon set,
> >> but a standard, by the way) come in these sizes (taken from
> >> <http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon_Theme_Guidelines>):
> >> * 16×16 (these are used in menus)
> >> * 22×22
> >> * 24×24 (these are generated from the 22×22 ones)
> >> * 32×32 (these are optional, not always available)
> >> * 48×48
> >> * scalable
> >> I think we should aim to use the 22×22 ones in the panels, but it's not
> >> that simple. The panel itself will add a border -- I think its size
> >> depends on the actual gtk theme being used.
> >> Then various panel plugins will add further margins and borders, depending
> >> on how the widgets are packed in the actual plugin, and also how the
> >> particular plugin handles the icon and text sizes.
> >> In particular, the clock plugins will not shrink below the default system
> >> font size, effectively making the panel size stay while (some of) the
> >> icons shrink.
> >> The 'quit/lock' plugin is a constant offender considering the panel size.
> >> The launcher, pager, systray, system and netwok monitor and clipman
> >> plugins seem to behave pretty well.
> >> Obviously the sane solution would be to patch the plugins to allow
> >> resizing of the panel no matter what icons and what system font size is
> >> used. Is it possible?
> > In trunk (upstream), the panel size is fixed, and plugins are forced
> > to deal with whatever size they are given. Based on that, I would
> > advise against putting much effort into solving the root of the
> > problem for 4.4, and instead find a reasonable compromise, until 4.6
> > is out.
> I totally agree with this, I will go even further, There should not be
> made any changes in XFCE, except some basic artwork, All changes must be
> made upstream. Communicate with the developers and work with them.
You think like the chief gimp developer who live in his own little
fenced garden, far from the real world of actual users and probably
think about himself as the quintessential user and does everything
according to his own vision rather than the real users '. This is why
after ten years, there is not a disagreement between developers and
users expectations but a growing abyss. Hardly passes a month on the
gimp mailing list without a rant about interface issues that is the
main feature graphic designers demanding to get improved for years and
this is the only thing that hasn't changed during the decade. Not
We have to do our best to put out the best possible xubuntu even with
the current limitations of xfce, rather than do nothing as you
suggest. Look at the other xfce distros, they are doing all kinds of
interesting things and some of them is quite attractive. It is not for
nothing that Mint, for instance, is in the fifth place on the
distorwatch. Take a look how polished it is.
More information about the xubuntu-devel