Sorry for late response...
I could introduce a preference for the nasty (IMHO) red outline for
modifications... particularly ugly/distracting for things like workspaces
though. You are quite welcome to leave feedback on the Swiki (when it
becomes available again!).

As for contrast I agree that the default StrikeFonts suffer somewhat with
some themes, FreeType is more than legible. Of Course you can always choose
the "StandardSqueak" theme for a 3.9 look while retaining the feel/usability
improvements.

Regards, Gary.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of
> Matthew Fulmer
> Sent: 09 July 2008 8:33 AM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] [ANN][Squeak-dev Images] Revival
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:20:25AM +0200, Damien Cassou wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > last week, I published 2 polls (http://www.doodle.ch/5u67s53greapfdu6
> > and http://www.doodle.ch/9y9r6nr2imci8g38) to help me know what you
> > want for the squeak-dev images. From these polls, I can conclude that:
> >
> > - you are becoming more and more interested in 3.10
> > - you believe some beta tools are stable enough to include in all
> > images (Nice fonts, UI Enhancements and SUnitGUI-improved).
> >
> > However, I do not understand why so much people continue to download
> > 3.9 based images. Maybe because there is the word 'beta' associated
> > with 3.10 based images on my webpage.
>
> I don't use the 3.10 beta images precicely because they include
> UIEnhancements, which severely reduces the color contrast in
> title bars and popup menus, and also eliminates the red border
> around edited texts.
>
> (and because OB is way too slow on an XO computer, but that's
> another story)
>
> --
> Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
>