- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On 9/23/11, corvid <corvid at lavabit.com> wrote: > I think I'm with Axel on not liking to waste pixels on the tabs, Take another look at this screenshot: http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/dillo/screenshots.php?closeup=Z02-dillo3… If there's any wasted space in that window, it's in the File menu and location bar, not in the tabs. A couple extra pixels in the tab bar height is *not* wasted space if it improves the tabs' appearance and readability; you wouldn't say books waste valuable inches with their margins, would you? > and, as for FL_NORMAL_SIZE, I'll likely commit the patch that > changes it based on font_factor, so if you have your font_factor > small, you may get your wish. (As for me, I'm happy with 14px.) If you're typing a document in a word processor and you zoom in, does the entire interface zoom with it? Of course not. The font face and size used in the user interface should be independent of the fonts used for page rendering. Of course, I suppose Unix is still a lawless wasteland, but professionally-developed modern desktop systems like Windows and OS X have guidelines for this sort of thing (and the higher-end toolkits like Qt even suggest following those guidelines, even if you don't develop for those specific platforms). Fortunately, by now I'm no stranger to patching either Dillo or FLTK... ~Benjamin

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Benjamin wrote: > maybe set FL_NORMAL_SIZE a bit smaller, since the 14px default is > frankly ridiculous.) I think I'm with Axel on not liking to waste pixels on the tabs, and, as for FL_NORMAL_SIZE, I'll likely commit the patch that changes it based on font_factor, so if you have your font_factor small, you may get your wish. (As for me, I'm happy with 14px.)

Sept. 23, 2011

3.0.1 released [Re: release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing]

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Johannes wrote: > due to some important privacy fixes we decided to make a > bugfix release. > http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.1-rc1.tar.bz2 > is available for download now and want's to be tested. > Please give it a try and report back. If everything goes smoothly, > this will become dillo-3.0.1.tar.bz2 on Friday. It's official now :) http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.1.tar.bz2 http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.1.tar.bz2.asc

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:47:37 -0400, Axel Beckert <abe at deuxchevaux.org> wrote: > Ehm, I thought the screenshot was without the added four pixels as you > wrote something like making them the same height like the File menu > and on that screenshot the tabs still have less height than the File > menu. > > Kind regards, Axel No, that screenshot's with the added four pixels (which is still less than the height of the File menu on panel_size=medium). By the way, I use Dillo regularly on a laptop with an 800x600 screen. Setting small icons and panel_size=small more than makes up for a couple extra pixels on the tab bar. ~Benjamin

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by abe＠deuxchevaux.org

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 03:35:50PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >> Four pixels are already quite a lot on todays "HD" screens which just >> have a screen height of 768 pixels. And quite some low-end netbooks >> just have 600 or 480 pixels screen height. There, fource pixels do >> matter. >> >> But OTOH: Why not make it configurable if we disagree? >> >>> It's hardly a dramatic change, yet it dramatically improves the tab >>> appearance and readability: >>> http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/dillo/screenshots.php?closeup=Z02-dillo3… >> >> Looks perfect and readable for me. > > You say it's wasting space, yet you agree it helps the readability. Ehm, I thought the screenshot was without the added four pixels as you wrote something like making them the same height like the File menu and on that screenshot the tabs still have less height than the File menu. Kind regards, Axel -- /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | abe at deuxchevaux.org (Mail) X See http://www.asciiribbon.org/ | abe at noone.org (Mail+Jabber) / \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://noone.org/abe/ (Web)

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:24:05 -0400, Axel Beckert <abe at deuxchevaux.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 03:17:53PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >>> it's pretty hard to please everyone when it comes to the look >>> of the UI - and vertical screen space is a sparse resource. >> >> Surely adding four pixels to the tab height isn't wasting screen >> space? > > I disagree. > > Four pixels are already quite a lot on todays "HD" screens which just > have a screen height of 768 pixels. And quite some low-end netbooks > just have 600 or 480 pixels screen height. There, fource pixels do > matter. > > But OTOH: Why not make it configurable if we disagree? > >> It's hardly a dramatic change, yet it dramatically improves the tab >> appearance and readability: >> http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/dillo/screenshots.php?closeup=Z02-dillo3… > > Looks perfect and readable for me. > > Kind regards, Axel You say it's wasting space, yet you agree it helps the readability. Obviously that means it serves its purpose, so I don't consider that wasted space. (If you *really* need to conserve vertical space, take a couple pixels off the File menu and location bar; they can spare it. Or maybe set FL_NORMAL_SIZE a bit smaller, since the 14px default is frankly ridiculous.) ~Benjamin

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by abe＠deuxchevaux.org

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 03:17:53PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >> it's pretty hard to please everyone when it comes to the look >> of the UI - and vertical screen space is a sparse resource. > > Surely adding four pixels to the tab height isn't wasting screen > space? I disagree. Four pixels are already quite a lot on todays "HD" screens which just have a screen height of 768 pixels. And quite some low-end netbooks just have 600 or 480 pixels screen height. There, fource pixels do matter. But OTOH: Why not make it configurable if we disagree? > It's hardly a dramatic change, yet it dramatically improves the tab > appearance and readability: > http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/dillo/screenshots.php?closeup=Z02-dillo3… Looks perfect and readable for me. Kind regards, Axel -- /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | abe at deuxchevaux.org (Mail) X See http://www.asciiribbon.org/ | abe at noone.org (Mail+Jabber) / \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://noone.org/abe/ (Web)

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:06:51 -0400, Johannes Hofmann <Johannes.Hofmann at gmx.de> wrote: > it's pretty hard to please everyone when it comes to the look > of the UI - and vertical screen space is a sparse resource. > > Cheers, > Johannes Surely adding four pixels to the tab height isn't wasting screen space? It's hardly a dramatic change, yet it dramatically improves the tab appearance and readability: http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/dillo/screenshots.php?closeup=Z02-dillo3… Here's my patch; the line of interest is in the second section: http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/patches/23-tabs.diff ~Benjamin

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:49:59PM -0800, Roger wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:48:31PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > >Hi, > > > >due to some important privacy fixes we decided to make a > >bugfix release. > >http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.1-rc1.tar.bz2 > >is available for download now and want's to be tested. > >Please give it a try and report back. If everything goes smoothly, > >this will become dillo-3.0.1.tar.bz2 on Friday. > > Compiles & runs on i686 (P3). > > ... the tabs look nice, but could increase the height to match the File button > or no? it's pretty hard to please everyone when it comes to the look of the UI - and vertical screen space is a sparse resource. Cheers, Johannes

Sept. 23, 2011

border space

by itsme_410＠yahoo.com

--- On Fri, 9/23/11, corvid <corvid at lavabit.com> wrote: > From: corvid <corvid at lavabit.com> > Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev] border space > To: dillo-dev at dillo.org > Date: Friday, September 23, 2011, 1:44 AM > Globe Trotter wrote: > > same story with http://www.nytimes.com as well as http://www.huffingtonpost.com, for instance. The last > is pretty much unreadable on dillo as a result. Is this a > result of frames? > > These don't look worse than usual to me. I wonder whether > you > have some unusual settings. > Interesting! My settings are the same as what comes with the stock dillorc.

Sept. 23, 2011