After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 458246 - Remove the label indentation from a HIG style GtkFrame (with GTK_SHADOW_NONE)
Remove the label indentation from a HIG style GtkFrame (with GTK_SHADOW_NONE)
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 644199
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: Widget: Other
2.10.x
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
gtk-bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-07-19 10:00 UTC by Jef Driesen
Modified: 2011-10-28 07:59 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Jef Driesen 2007-07-19 10:00:06 UTC
For grouping related items in a dialog, I'm want to use a HIG style GtkFrame:

GtkFrame (bold label, no visible border)
    GtkAlignment (12px padding left, 6px padding top)
       <child widget>

But the label of the GtkFrame is indented a few pixels. Since the frame has no borders, this indentation appears as extra left padding between the frame and its parent widget. Also the 12px padding of the GtkAlignment seems to be reduced by this indentation.

Currently, the only solution is not using a GtkFrame:

GtkVBox
    GtkLabel (bold label)
    GtkAlignment (12px padding left, 6px padding top)
       <child widget>

I find it rather strange that it's nearly impossible to obtain the recommended style [1,2] with the widget that is designed for this type of layout. I think the indentation should be removed when there is no visible border (e.g. GTK_SHADOW_NONE). Bug 96374 (comment 7 and 12) mentions the (removal of the) indentation, but as far as I can tell it was never implemented.

[1] http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/2.0/controls-frames.html
[2] http://gnomejournal.org/article/44/three-simple-tips-for-interface-design-you-should-know
Comment 1 Murray Cumming 2011-10-28 07:59:48 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 644199 ***