On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 13:29, Rick W. Chen <stuffcor...@archlinux.us> wrote: > On 06 Nov 2011 09:22 +0100, Bart Cerneels: >> Micro option! And as far as I can tell because only one user >> complained on the forums. Unless Rick has a personal preference. >> Still, we need to be very hesitant to add micro options. >> >> The arguments for having the backgrounds: >> - Reduces the "field of grey" effect when the browsers are empty. >> - General prettyness >> - Recognition of browser without reading >> >> Any reasons to have the option to remove them besides: one user wants it? > > It is my personal preference. I didn't know about the user in the > forum. > > I almost always have the collection browser open. Sometimes the > background makes the texts harder to read. That's why I prefer not to > have them shown. I generally agree with the arguments you gave, but for > me readability is more important. > > A note on prettyness: If you have enabled qt tree collapse/expand > animations, during that time the background image would not be visible. > It is filled with base window colour and when the animation stops the > image will suddenly reappear. That's just how it works. You can also see > this in the album applet. Visually that's not too pleasing.
We are aware of this. Figured it's not that big of an issue and we would find a solution later. Still have not found a way to do it though. Would setting the background transparent and having the image *behind* the itemview work? _______________________________________________ Amarok-devel mailing list Amarok-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
