On 06 Nov 2011 21:41 +0100, Bart Cerneels:
> 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?
That's they way it looks at the moment, no?
--
Rick
_______________________________________________
Amarok-devel mailing list
Amarok-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
