Hi Chris,
I don't think I will be making the call on whether my (and Ben's) LookEnhancements will go into 3.9. There was some interest in that topic a month ago or so, but it seems to have died down. I pretty much don't care if it isn't included since I will just keep maintaining the enhancements and applying to future editions of squeak as an add-on. I would certainly welcome the incorporation into Squeak, but then I might lose control over the enhancements if that happens. Anyways, if you are interested, I know the enhancements work in 3.9.
I'll look over your proposed enhancements and consider them for inclusion in the code. Thanks for your nice words and proposed enhancements!
Regards,
John
On 7/20/05, Chris Muller chris@funkyobjects.org wrote:
Hello, I wanted to you let you I really like your LookEnhancements. Quite gorgeous. Is this going into 3.9?
I wanted to share an additional enhancement I made today. After loading LookEnhancements 6-31 from SqueakMap, I added a new preference to windows category called "inverteBright". It inverts the brightness, using white text on dark or black backgrounds.
Here is a screenshot.
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/5729
Also note the other minor enhancement. The list-selections match the textHighlightColor, even in the Explorer view..
When day returns, the normal bright view is mostly unaffected. Should you wish to download and try it out:
http://map1.squeakfoundation.org/sm/account/package/5c9346cf-9f4e-4b38-af2b-...
Would you be interested in absorbing this into LookEnhancements?
Cheers, Chris
On 21 juil. 05, at 6:16, John Pierce wrote:
Hi Chris,
I don't think I will be making the call on whether my (and Ben's) LookEnhancements will go into 3.9. There was some interest in that topic a month ago or so, but it seems to have died down.
I cannot decide alone :)
I pretty much don't care if it isn't included since I will just keep maintaining the enhancements and applying to future editions of squeak as an add-on.
Cool
I would certainly welcome the incorporation into Squeak, but then I might lose control over the enhancements if that happens. Anyways, if you are interested, I know the enhancements work in 3.9.
I'll look over your proposed enhancements and consider them for inclusion in the code. Thanks for your nice words and proposed enhancements!
So I will have a look too :)
Regards,
John
On 7/20/05, Chris Muller chris@funkyobjects.org wrote: Hello, I wanted to you let you I really like your LookEnhancements. Quite gorgeous. Is this going into 3.9?
I wanted to share an additional enhancement I made today. After loading LookEnhancements 6-31 from SqueakMap, I added a new preference to windows category called "inverteBright". It inverts the brightness, using white text on dark or black backgrounds.
Here is a screenshot.
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/5729
Also note the other minor enhancement. The list-selections match the textHighlightColor, even in the Explorer view..
When day returns, the normal bright view is mostly unaffected. Should you wish to download and try it out:
http://map1.squeakfoundation.org/sm/account/package/ 5c9346cf-9f4e-4b38-af2b-7f218280e576
Would you be interested in absorbing this into LookEnhancements?
Cheers, Chris
-- It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple idea. -- Carver Mead
Hi John
I don't think I will be making the call on whether my (and Ben's) LookEnhancements will go into 3.9. There was some interest in that topic a month ago or so, but it seems to have died down.
I've been using your LookEnhancements quite a lot and I really think it's an enhancement (at least from what I see visually) over what is the standard look.
Of course, there are some things that I'd like to be improved as well, like the different shapes of buttons that I really think should be unified (I remember three different ones). Or, for example the icons in the title bar of the windows could be improved. I'd also make the title bar of the windows a bit less high...
I don't know if other people hate this look enhancements and would object to making them default, but I'd definitely like to see them in...
Thanks for your work,
Adrian
I pretty much don't care if it isn't included since I will just keep maintaining the enhancements and applying to future editions of squeak as an add-on. I would certainly welcome the incorporation into Squeak, but then I might lose control over the enhancements if that happens. Anyways, if you are interested, I know the enhancements work in 3.9.
I'll look over your proposed enhancements and consider them for inclusion in the code. Thanks for your nice words and proposed enhancements!
Regards,
John
On 7/20/05, Chris Muller chris@funkyobjects.org wrote: Hello, I wanted to you let you I really like your LookEnhancements. Quite gorgeous. Is this going into 3.9?
I wanted to share an additional enhancement I made today. After loading LookEnhancements 6-31 from SqueakMap, I added a new preference to windows category called "inverteBright". It inverts the brightness, using white text on dark or black backgrounds.
Here is a screenshot.
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/5729
Also note the other minor enhancement. The list-selections match the textHighlightColor, even in the Explorer view..
When day returns, the normal bright view is mostly unaffected. Should you wish to download and try it out:
http://map1.squeakfoundation.org/sm/account/package/ 5c9346cf-9f4e-4b38-af2b-7f218280e576
Would you be interested in absorbing this into LookEnhancements?
Cheers, Chris
-- It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple idea. -- Carver Mead
Of course, there are some things that I'd like to be improved as well, like the different shapes of buttons that I really think should be unified (I remember three different ones). Or, for example the icons in the title bar of the windows could be improved. I'd also make the title bar of the windows a bit less high...
In the latest edition we've made some significant rounds through various common dialogs to make the button style the same throughout. I'm always open to additional enhancements in this area if you mention what dialogs have buttons that don't align with the style.
I don't know if other people hate this look enhancements and would
object to making them default, but I'd definitely like to see them in...
Thanks for your work,
Thanks!
John
thx John, almost all of the buttons have the same style now, nice. (I think I've only seen one exception, namely the search button in the "message names" dialog).
Unfortunately the newer version cannot be loaded anymore in a 3.7 image because of the dependency on SystemProgressMorph which seems to be new in 3.8. I don't know whether you can easily make that backwards compatible or not. I think it's not that important but would "nice to have".
Another thing that stroke me is peed... In 3.8 with the enhancement everything seems to be a bit slower than before (the UI in Squeak never was fast but I have the feeling it become slower with each new release...).
To get some numbers (they should probably be treated with care..) I evaluated "[ 10 timesRepeat: [ Browser openBrowser ] ] timeToRun" and got:
3.7 without LookEnhancement: 9674 3.7 with LookEnhancement: 12060 3.8 with LookEnhancement: 15665 3.8 without LookEnhancement: 11138
Are there any possible improvements in the enhancement?
Cheers, Adrian
On Jul 21, 2005, at 3:16 PM, John Pierce wrote:
In the latest edition we've made some significant rounds through various common dialogs to make the button style the same throughout. I'm always open to additional enhancements in this area if you mention what dialogs have buttons that don't align with the style.
I don't know if other people hate this look enhancements and would object to making them default, but I'd definitely like to see them in...
Thanks for your work,
Thanks!
John
-- It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple idea. -- Carver Mead
Hi Adrian,
On 7/26/05, Adrian Lienhard adi@netstyle.ch wrote:
Unfortunately the newer version cannot be loaded anymore in a 3.7 image because of the dependency on SystemProgressMorph which seems to be new in 3.8. I don't know whether you can easily make that backwards compatible or not. I think it's not that important but would "nice to have".
I wonder if there is a Monticello way of handling this. I added some overrides to SystemProgressMorph and the only way I know how to address what you are talking about is to fork my code to handle 3.7's lack of SystemProgressMorph class. Can you just proceed past the warning or is there something fatal ocurring?
Another thing that stroke me is peed... In 3.8 with the enhancement everything seems to be a bit slower than before (the UI in Squeak never was fast but I have the feeling it become slower with each new release...).
I'll look at the performance numbers. I have some ideas of what my be slowing things down.
To get some numbers (they should probably be treated with care..) I
evaluated "[ 10 timesRepeat: [ Browser openBrowser ] ] timeToRun" and got:
Regards,
John
Hi John
I wonder if there is a Monticello way of handling this. I added some overrides to SystemProgressMorph and the only way I know how to address what you are talking about is to fork my code to handle 3.7's lack of SystemProgressMorph class. Can you just proceed past the warning or is there something fatal ocurring?
yes, quite fatal: during installation there's an exception and trying to open the debugger crashed my image... Anyway, don't lose time to fork for 3.7. If we really like to have that later for earlier versions as well, we can still do it. Though, I suggest you to change the SM entry to not list 3.7 as supported version.
There is one thing more that could be improved, if you don't mind ;-): resizing the window is really slow. Maybe there is a preference I have not found to turn off redrawing of the window when resizing (just as it is done for dragging the window or resizing panes)?
Cheers, Adrian
Hi Adrian,
On 7/28/05, Adrian Lienhard adi@netstyle.ch wrote:
yes, quite fatal: during installation there's an exception and trying to open the debugger crashed my image...
I'm curious if the latest edition has this same problem. I corrected a seemingly hard dependency upon SystemProgressMorph and made it softer in the #initialize of one of the classes loaded in (using Smalltalk at: #SystemProgressMorph technique). Might want to try again with 3.7 and let me know just so I have the data point.
There is one thing more that could be improved, if you don't
mind ;-): resizing the window is really slow. Maybe there is a preference I have not found to turn off redrawing of the window when resizing (just as it is done for dragging the window or resizing panes)?
I'll look at that. I don't think there was this feature in Morphic before LookEnhancements, right? So this would probably be a new feature to consider and I will take a look and see how hard it will be.
John
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 10:23:24AM -0400, John Pierce wrote:
On 7/28/05, Adrian Lienhard adi@netstyle.ch wrote:
There is one thing more that could be improved, if you don't mind ;-): resizing the window is really slow. Maybe there is a preference I have not found to turn off redrawing of the window when resizing (just as it is done for dragging the window or resizing panes)?
I'll look at that. I don't think there was this feature in Morphic before LookEnhancements, right? So this would probably be a new feature to consider and I will take a look and see how hard it will be.
Sure there is. The preference fastDragWindowForMorphic applies to both window and pane resizing, as well as dragging.
-Jesse
I'll look at that. I don't think there was this feature in Morphic
before
LookEnhancements, right? So this would probably be a new feature to
consider
and I will take a look and see how hard it will be.
Sure there is. The preference fastDragWindowForMorphic applies to both window and pane resizing, as well as dragging.
FastDragWindowForMorphic on my Squeak doesn't seem to make "resizing" window faster. Regards,
John
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:02:08PM -0400, John Pierce wrote:
I'll look at that. I don't think there was this feature in Morphic
before
LookEnhancements, right? So this would probably be a new feature to
consider
and I will take a look and see how hard it will be.
Sure there is. The preference fastDragWindowForMorphic applies to both window and pane resizing, as well as dragging.
FastDragWindowForMorphic on my Squeak doesn't seem to make "resizing" window faster.
I've just verified that it works for me in a clean 3.7 (5989), 3.8 (6665), or 3.9 (6678). (OSX 10.4, Squeak VM 3.8.8b2, though none of that should matter.)
-Jesse
Hi Adrian,
On 7/26/05, Adrian Lienhard adi@netstyle.ch wrote:
thx John, almost all of the buttons have the same style now, nice. (I think I've only seen one exception, namely the search button in the "message names" dialog).
I'm fixing this in a newer version -- thanks for the insight.
John
Hi Adrian,
On 7/26/05, Adrian Lienhard adi@netstyle.ch wrote:
Another thing that stroke me is peed... In 3.8 with the enhancement everything seems to be a bit slower than before (the UI in Squeak never was fast but I have the feeling it become slower with each new release...).
To get some numbers (they should probably be treated with care..) I evaluated "[ 10 timesRepeat: [ Browser openBrowser ] ] timeToRun" and got:
3.7 without LookEnhancement: 9674 3.7 with LookEnhancement: 12060 3.8 with LookEnhancement: 15665 3.8 without LookEnhancement: 11138
I cannot seem to substantiate these findings. Here's what I get after successive timed trials:
3.8 without LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds 3.8 with LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds
I saw no measurable difference in the timing, and, if any, the performance was marginally better for some goofy reason. Honest! I am running a P4 1.7GHz with 1 GB ram. Anyways, I don't find any hot spots to improve performance on at the moment.
Regards,
John
Hi John,
I've rerun this on a 3.8 and the very newest 3.9a on my PowerBook 1.25GHz, on a mac 3.7beta1 vm.
On the 3.9a image, LookEnh was even faster than without, in 3.8 it was slower. There were some performance improvements in 3.9 which seam to have quite some effect. From those numbers, I guess that LookEnh does not have the impact on performance I thought. At least we would need to do some better benchmarks to get reliable numbers...
Cheers, Adrian
BTW, here my numbers:
3.8 without LookEnh 9143 9226
3.8 with LookEnh: 9900 10151 9672
3.9 without LookEnh 7688 7594
3.9 with LookEnh 6848 6762 7414
On Jul 28, 2005, at 4:35 AM, John Pierce wrote:
Hi Adrian,
On 7/26/05, Adrian Lienhard adi@netstyle.ch wrote: Another thing that stroke me is peed... In 3.8 with the enhancement everything seems to be a bit slower than before (the UI in Squeak never was fast but I have the feeling it become slower with each new release...).
To get some numbers (they should probably be treated with care..) I evaluated "[ 10 timesRepeat: [ Browser openBrowser ] ] timeToRun" and got:
3.7 without LookEnhancement: 9674 3.7 with LookEnhancement: 12060 3.8 with LookEnhancement: 15665 3.8 without LookEnhancement: 11138
I cannot seem to substantiate these findings. Here's what I get after successive timed trials:
3.8 without LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds 3.8 with LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds
I saw no measurable difference in the timing, and, if any, the performance was marginally better for some goofy reason. Honest! I am running a P4 1.7GHz with 1 GB ram. Anyways, I don't find any hot spots to improve performance on at the moment.
Regards,
John
-- It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple idea. -- Carver Mead
You should run these with a 3.8.8b6 mac VM and see what happens.
On 28-Jul-05, at 6:24 AM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
Hi John,
I've rerun this on a 3.8 and the very newest 3.9a on my PowerBook 1.25GHz, on a mac 3.7beta1 vm.
On the 3.9a image, LookEnh was even faster than without, in 3.8 it was slower. There were some performance improvements in 3.9 which seam to have quite some effect. From those numbers, I guess that LookEnh does not have the impact on performance I thought. At least we would need to do some better benchmarks to get reliable numbers...
Cheers, Adrian
BTW, here my numbers:
3.8 without LookEnh 9143 9226
3.8 with LookEnh: 9900 10151 9672
3.9 without LookEnh 7688 7594
3.9 with LookEnh 6848 6762 7414
On Jul 28, 2005, at 4:35 AM, John Pierce wrote:
Hi Adrian,
On 7/26/05, Adrian Lienhard adi@netstyle.ch wrote: Another thing that stroke me is peed... In 3.8 with the enhancement everything seems to be a bit slower than before (the UI in Squeak never was fast but I have the feeling it become slower with each new release...).
To get some numbers (they should probably be treated with care..) I evaluated "[ 10 timesRepeat: [ Browser openBrowser ] ] timeToRun" and got:
3.7 without LookEnhancement: 9674 3.7 with LookEnhancement: 12060 3.8 with LookEnhancement: 15665 3.8 without LookEnhancement: 11138
I cannot seem to substantiate these findings. Here's what I get after successive timed trials:
3.8 without LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds 3.8 with LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds
I saw no measurable difference in the timing, and, if any, the performance was marginally better for some goofy reason. Honest! I am running a P4 1.7GHz with 1 GB ram. Anyways, I don't find any hot spots to improve performance on at the moment.
Regards,
John
-- It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple idea. -- Carver Mead
-- ======================================================================== === John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ======================================================================== ===
On Jul 29, 2005, at 6:18 AM, John M McIntosh wrote:
You should run these with a 3.8.8b6 mac VM and see what happens.
the new vm does not seam to have an effect (this is without LookEnhancement):
3.7.4b1, 3.8 image: 11076 10100 10074
3.8.8b6, 3.8 image: 11491 11399 11682
3.7.4b1, 3.9 image: 7745 7706 8282 7938
3.8.8b6, 3.9 image: 7877 7951 7876 8500
Initially, I came up with these numbers because I suspected LookEnhancement to have negative influence on performance, which not seams to be true. A nice finding is that the performance improvements in 3.9 are remarkable.
Cheers, Adrian
On 28-Jul-05, at 6:24 AM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
Hi John,
I've rerun this on a 3.8 and the very newest 3.9a on my PowerBook 1.25GHz, on a mac 3.7beta1 vm.
On the 3.9a image, LookEnh was even faster than without, in 3.8 it was slower. There were some performance improvements in 3.9 which seam to have quite some effect. From those numbers, I guess that LookEnh does not have the impact on performance I thought. At least we would need to do some better benchmarks to get reliable numbers...
Cheers, Adrian
BTW, here my numbers:
3.8 without LookEnh 9143 9226
3.8 with LookEnh: 9900 10151 9672
3.9 without LookEnh 7688 7594
3.9 with LookEnh 6848 6762 7414
On Jul 28, 2005, at 4:35 AM, John Pierce wrote:
Hi Adrian,
On 7/26/05, Adrian Lienhard adi@netstyle.ch wrote: Another thing that stroke me is peed... In 3.8 with the enhancement everything seems to be a bit slower than before (the UI in Squeak never was fast but I have the feeling it become slower with each new release...).
To get some numbers (they should probably be treated with care..) I evaluated "[ 10 timesRepeat: [ Browser openBrowser ] ] timeToRun" and got:
3.7 without LookEnhancement: 9674 3.7 with LookEnhancement: 12060 3.8 with LookEnhancement: 15665 3.8 without LookEnhancement: 11138
I cannot seem to substantiate these findings. Here's what I get after successive timed trials:
3.8 without LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds 3.8 with LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds
I saw no measurable difference in the timing, and, if any, the performance was marginally better for some goofy reason. Honest! I am running a P4 1.7GHz with 1 GB ram. Anyways, I don't find any hot spots to improve performance on at the moment.
Regards,
John
-- It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple idea. -- Carver Mead
--
===== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http:// www.smalltalkconsulting.com ====================================================================== =====
Hi Adrian,
I've been using your LookEnhancements quite a lot and I really think
it's an enhancement (at least from what I see visually) over what is the standard look.
Of course, there are some things that I'd like to be improved as well, like the different shapes of buttons that I really think should be unified (I remember three different ones). Or, for example the icons in the title bar of the windows could be improved. I'd also make the title bar of the windows a bit less high...
Do you or anyone care to develop new icons to be used in the title bar? Shoot some candidates my way if you have some ideas.
Regards,
John
what size? Because I could try to do that following the iconMenu I did when diego started to put icons there.
Stef
On 23 juil. 05, at 4:23, John Pierce wrote:
Hi Adrian,
I've been using your LookEnhancements quite a lot and I really think it's an enhancement (at least from what I see visually) over what is the standard look.
Of course, there are some things that I'd like to be improved as well, like the different shapes of buttons that I really think should be unified (I remember three different ones). Or, for example the icons in the title bar of the windows could be improved. I'd also make the title bar of the windows a bit less high...
Do you or anyone care to develop new icons to be used in the title bar? Shoot some candidates my way if you have some ideas.
Regards,
John
It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple idea. -- Carver Mead
Hi Stef,
I looked and these are the standard windows title bar icons. My LookEnhancements do not change the icons one bit. The icons appear to be 10 x 10 in size and 16-bit color. I suspect if you provide new graphics of the same size then I can just swap out the storeStrings on the class-side of SystemWindow (i.e. closeBoxImage, collapseBoxImage, etc...) and voila!
Regards,
John
On 7/23/05, stéphane ducasse ducasse@iam.unibe.ch wrote:
what size? Because I could try to do that following the iconMenu I did when diego started to put icons there.
Stef
On 23 juil. 05, at 4:23, John Pierce wrote:
Hi Adrian,
I've been using your LookEnhancements quite a lot and I really think it's an enhancement (at least from what I see visually) over what is the standard look.
Of course, there are some things that I'd like to be improved as well, like the different shapes of buttons that I really think should be unified (I remember three different ones). Or, for example the icons in the title bar of the windows could be improved. I'd also make the title bar of the windows a bit less high...
Do you or anyone care to develop new icons to be used in the title bar? Shoot some candidates my way if you have some ideas.
Regards,
John
It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple idea. -- Carver Mead
It works great, thanks.
Good work
Hi
I really like the LookEnhancents a lot. Today we discussed them a little bit and although we all found them great, we came up with some improvement suggestions:
- The scroll bars (and the buttons at the end of them) should have a flat style too, their current 3d style doesn't match the flat style of the LookEnhancements. - It might be a good idea to rethink the position and icons of the window icons. I don't find it very intuitive how it's done right now, and I'm not alone with that. Perhaps do it more like Windows, both in terms of icons (hyphen, caret, X) and position (all on the right, minize, maximize, close). - The tooltips/ballontips tips don't really match the new style (especially the aliasing), perhaps you want to make them recangular with a slight gradient, - Could you enhance the flaps as well? ;)
Philippe
On 2-Aug-05, at 11:20 AM, Philippe Marschall wrote:
- It might be a good idea to rethink the position and icons of the
window icons. I don't find it very intuitive how it's done right now, and I'm not alone with that. Perhaps do it more like Windows, both in terms of icons (hyphen, caret, X) and position (all on the right, minize, maximize, close).
There simply isn't any such thing as 'intuitive' here. Left, right, middle, X or red-blob, it's not intuitive. It might be _intuitable_ once you've been given a decent clue. If you're lucky.
The fact that Windows does it some way is not a reason to make Squeak do it that way, any more than copying OSX is "the right way". A simple, logical set of controls, with an understandable way of acting and icons that are not too ugly is the best approach. If people do have strong attachment to their platforms way of doing things then someone with time and interest needs to work on a framework to handle that. If you're _really_ into platform furniture, start making use of the Areithfa Ffenestri code to provide platform windows (and potentially, menus).
tim
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Adrian Lienhard -
Damien Cassou -
Jesse Welton -
John M McIntosh -
John Pierce -
Philippe Marschall -
stéphane ducasse -
tim Rowledge