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 611159 - Restore disclosure triangle (or add an option to use it)
Restore disclosure triangle (or add an option to use it)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: murrine
Classification: Other
Component: general
trunk
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: murrine-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2010-02-26 09:36 UTC by Luca Ferretti
Modified: 2010-05-25 20:00 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
SVG sources and XCF test for triangle appearance (49.08 KB, application/x-gzip)
2010-05-13 20:31 UTC, Luca Ferretti
Details

Description Luca Ferretti 2010-02-26 09:36:15 UTC
It seems that recently Murrine switched from the disclosure triangle (for treeview items and GtkExpander) to old style +/- buttons.

I remember a long discussion in GTK+/GNOME regarding this, and the triangles was chosen due to their ability to suggest the users how they are used and to represent the current state. At the contrary, the + & - could carry the ideas of "add" and "remove", leading to misbehaving.

Then, could we please restore triangles or at least provide an option to choose?
Comment 1 Andrea Cimitan 2010-02-26 09:40:31 UTC
Strange enough, we are planning to add the same style used in murrine to clearlooks :)
At the moment, could be enough to just use Gtk+ default engine to draw the expander, can be done in the gtkrc I guess
Comment 2 Luca Ferretti 2010-02-26 11:59:31 UTC
Cimi, sorry, could you please explain me the rationale behind this change? Maybe I'm accustomed with triangle after long time, but I feel +/- wrong as default expander, at least in treeview (while could be good offer it as option).
Comment 3 stubenschrott 2010-03-15 12:18:10 UTC
I fully agree with this bug report. 

Even Apple's HIG (which are not the holy grail, but usually they know something about user interfaces) explains that disclosure triangles are OK:

http://developer.apple.com/Mac/library/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGControls/XHIGControls.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000359-TPXREF141

So while +/- are probably also OK from a user interface perspective, I think triangles look MUCH sleeker than +/- buttons. Maybe you can come up with something even better, but +/- really looks like windows95 to me.
Comment 4 Matthew Pirocchi 2010-05-13 15:55:19 UTC
I would also like to know the rationale behind this change. I've tried to get used to it, but aside from being misleading, it's just hideously ugly. At the very least, could we get a gconf option to change it back?
Comment 5 Andrea Cimitan 2010-05-13 15:59:18 UTC
I changed it just because I like it more :)

if someone has mockups, I will implement them
Comment 6 Matthew Pirocchi 2010-05-13 16:04:43 UTC
Cimi: What do you want mockups of? I'm just talking about the triangle expander style. You can see it in murrine now by adding this to your gtkrc:

style "expander-fix" = "default" {
engine "" {}
}

class "GtkExpander" style "expander-fix"
class "GtkTreeView" style "expander-fix"
class "GtkCTree" style "expander-fix"
Comment 7 Andrea Cimitan 2010-05-13 16:06:34 UTC
yeah I know. But I don't like it.
If someone of you has an idea for a better implementation, that looks better with the overall look of murrine, I will be happy to implement it
Comment 8 Matthew Pirocchi 2010-05-13 16:10:33 UTC
Cimi: I'm really appreciative of all the work you've done with Murrine, so don't take this the wrong way, but do you really think that "I don't like it" is a good reason to change it for everyone else? If it's just a matter of your personal taste, why not just change it on your own computer, and allow everyone else to keep using it with the triangles (which most people seem to prefer)?
Comment 9 Andrea Cimitan 2010-05-13 16:15:58 UTC
because "most people" are you three guys of this bugreport?
You're behaving exactly in the same way as me "you don't like it" and want a way to restore the triangle.
It's a matter of choices, tastes... so yours has the same value of mine. But, as I am the developer so I am the one who will spend time (spare time, I'm not paid for) in reverting the previous one, I will do it when I'm sure I could make the two parties happy: the party which loves the new style (like me), and the guys like you who prefers the previous one.
For example thinking about a new kind of triangle or similar.
Comment 10 Matthew Pirocchi 2010-05-13 16:19:59 UTC
Cimi: You're right, I was just holding my opinion above yours. It would be nice to have some actual data on what people prefer, but in the meantime we just have to go off personal preference. Thanks for taking the time to explain!
Comment 11 Andrea Cimitan 2010-05-13 16:22:57 UTC
No worries... also, I agree that a triangle is more usable... so I will definitely like to implement a new style based on a triangle.
Ideas for a better design?
Comment 12 Matthew Pirocchi 2010-05-13 16:36:14 UTC
Unfortunately I'm not a designer--anything I could come up with would be about 20 steps in the wrong direction :P
Comment 13 Luca Ferretti 2010-05-13 20:31:00 UTC
Created attachment 161004 [details]
SVG sources and XCF test for triangle appearance

I totally forgot to attach this. There is a test of a shape. It resembles, of course, the one from Mac OS (not exact copy), but it's IMHO more visible and "clickable".

Package content:
  disclosure-<size>.svg -- 3 different sizes, IMHO the best one is the medium
  disclosure-*-highlight.svg -- just a test, using a dark border
  nautilus-expander-test.xcf - use layer to preview the appearance of triangles in real usage.
Comment 14 Andrea Cimitan 2010-05-25 20:00:44 UTC
This problem has been fixed in the development version. The fix will be available in the next major software release. Thank you for your bug report.

expanderstyle = 0 does this, which is actually the default behaviour.
I suggest to reduce the size of the expander.