Andreas,

> [Re: Window title bar height]

> Makes sense although I find it a good idea to prepare for variable sizes
> from the beginning - some people have better eyes than others and the
> designer will have a hard time to match both with a "one size fits all"
> approach. Personally, I found the title bar just too big in general and
> would've preferred a smaller one. Others surely will like the larger one
(in
> particular if you're on an iBook in 1024x768 ;-)
>

Right. Of course, this is one of the advantages of having a 'skinnable'
window frame, you can have different themes based on the resolution. I
happen to use this one on a 1600x1200 monitor where it's just about the
right size. Interestingly, on my laptop (1024x768) this seems like a good
size if I am only using my trackpad, but it's too big when using a mouse. At
800x600 it is unusable. It's anti-Squeak in the sense that it doesn't scale
very well to different resolutions, but is flexible from the perspective
that you can design specialized skins for small displays as well as large
ones.

In some sense, a more general way to handle these types of situations is to
have different window frame themes at different screen resolutions, i.e.
small, medium and large. What I tend to dislike about the scaling approach
is that bitmap graphics tend to get messy looking and blurry when they are
scaled. I have room in the implementation for Squeak-drawn buttons and
window edges, but I won't really trust them until we get true block
closures. I'm hoping someone is working hard on that.

In designing a bit mapped type of approach at given resolution ranges, you
can better define the 'look' that you are trying to achieve. If you're using
an iBook, you would probably be happier with an Aqua skin, I would reckon
;-)  That's one of the things I picked up from Alan, you should just have a
thousand different looks available to be able to pick and choose from
depending on the mood of the piece. ( I implemented Aqua scrollbars and
mixed them with this look, gives it a very surreal feel).

BTW, this is implementation is pretty close to what the out of box Windows
XP Luna looks like, with the exception of the the menu bar. They be thinking
big window frames over there.

> [Re: Corner rounding]
> > Blame those people at Microsoft !!!
>
> Hey, what do you care about Microsoft? Make it look great and we'll just
put
> 'em out of business (heh, heh ;-)

Don't care very much, it's just that this is a Microsoft look as it were. I
just need some one with artistic talent to draw me up an appropriate look
for Squeak. My drawing talents are pretty much limited to drawing poorly
formed stick people with funny features (OK, it's not really a talent ;-). I
chose the Luna skin just because I could get my hands on all the bits and
pieces fairly easilyy, there aren't a whole lot of tricky transparency
tricks in it, and it seemed to me at the time to have a bright, happy,
Squeaky kind of feel. Oh, and I like blue.

>
> I entirely agree. But I was seriously *shocked* about how much it [the
blasphemous menu bar - ed.] affected
> my view on Squeak. In the blink of an eye it transformed Squeak from a
> creative tool into a straitjacket.
>

I have similar feelings about flaps and the gold navigator bar. It seemed to
me to add a 'childish' feel to Squeak, rather than that of a serious
development environment, even though I use the tools flap all of the time.
The project navigator, OTOH, feels much more 'macho'and elegant. I consider
it my friend. I assume that a lot of that is my perception of the flap tab
graphics. I noticed when I did the scrollbars that they suddenly became much
'lighter', alive and abstract than the stock implementation, and seemed for
some reason to feel happy. Same functionality, different look, different
feeling.

All in all, it's pretty strange how just throwing bits around on the screen
make Squeak feel like an all together different animal.

Jim