| |
| |
On 5/7/24 02:20 Daniel Harding wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2024 at 5:28:23 PM UTC-5 Albrecht-S wrote:
> I agree that the new arrows look a bit too large in your screenshots. For
> digging deeper into details please tell us which 1.3.x version you are
> using, just in case this changed during 1.3.x development.
The 1.3 screenshots from above are from git tag release-1.3.8.
Thanks for the screenshots, they are very helpful, particularly
those with all your themes.
Seeting up your different themes for testing would be a big help. Is
your program open source, can you share a link so we can test, or
can you share the theme setup and we can create our own "themes" for
testing?
The screenshots all use the base scheme. I also have the same feeling about
the gtk+ scheme with slightly large menu arrows. I haven't spent any time
observing any other schemes.
I limited the menu arrow size in commit
866a4a4fcb6c564b067cce38a90696645fab7c0e. Please test and report if
this is "better". However, note that there may be different opinions
("arrows are now too small") and we may set the limit higher in the
future.
Thanks for the additional info and background.
Welcome.
Matthias' comment on github issue #969 led me on a hunt where I found
fl_contrast_mode(FL_CONTRAST_LEGACY); which is sufficient at the very least
for my needs.
Yup, that was the intention, keeping the old function for border
cases where programs need the old (legacy) behavior. But you should
keep in mind that this algorithm doesn't calculate correct contrast
values WRT visual perception.
If you all choose to improve the "new" contrast function even further, then
great. But at least I have the "legacy" contrast function in any case.
Thanks for making that available.
There are currently no plans to improve the (new) fl_contrast()
method in 1.4.x but there may be another method in a later FLTK
version. You can even write your own and use that (see the docs).
There's another, much simpler, option to fine-tune the new
fl_contrast() method to make it "less aggressive":
fl_contrast_level().
https://www.fltk.org/doc-1.4/group__fl__attributes.html#ga5cb53fa508f3e45a0ccab46151461a2c
See the docs for how to set this, and maybe setting the level lower
than the default (55 for the new mode) can help to achieve what you
want. However, I do not recommend changing the contrast level, at
least not lower than 50.
In case these practical examples are helpful, here are the 12 themes in my
application with FLTK 1.3.8: [image]
And here are the themes in FLTK 1.4 with the new/default contrast function: [image]
Great, thank you very much. See my question above for source code
for my testing.
The number of themes where the selection color was replaced with white
changed from 2/12 in FLTK 1.3.8 to 8/12 in FLTK 1.4, and in many of the
cases I think the contrast function was "too aggressive" but of course
that's only my subjective opinion.
How to improve it (if at all) I will leave up to all of you.
As I wrote on GitHub Issue #969 I believe that the current code is
not as it should be. Manolo proposed a change in that Issue which
looks IMHO much better, although he also writes that it's not the
final solution. But we'll investigate this further.
What's also interesting (at least somewhat) is that the contrast function
is also forcing many of the radio buttons and check marks to be black
instead of the selection color, even when I think the selection color looks
good.
Thanks for this comment too, I noticed this fact as well. I'll check
this...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "fltk.general" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fltkgeneral+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fltkgeneral/978937df-60e7-43a8-bc10-24e3c5836c71%40aljus.de.
[ Direct Link to Message ] | |
|
| |
