From: Al Le <al.le_at_gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:13:14 +0200

On 30.06.2009 00:02, Paul Louden wrote:

> We now present "Fonts" as if it were simply a setting, rather than a
> file browser. This distinction is actually beneficial, because changing
> the font just changes one value (current font) and if that value is
> changed elsewhere (maybe by loading a .cfg file such as a theme) the
> font list *should* (I don't know if it does) update to the new currently
> selected one. In this way it can absolutely show the "value" that is in
> use.

This would also work for themes. If a theme setting is changed (no
matter how -- manually or by loading a .cfg) then we can add an asterisk
to the pre-selected theme (or do some other things that have been
proposed here). So we can always tell whether the current state exactly
corresponds to the theme or not.


> But you're judging based on your own expectations. The only thing we
> know is that there have been very, very, very few people asking "Why
> doesn't it remember what theme I last selected in this menu?" so even
> people who find it unexpected haven't felt it was actually a problem
> worth reporting or requesting a change over.

This is probably because themes are rarely changed and there are not
that many of them. So even if the current theme is not pre-selected,
you're still not lost. For fonts, it's not so.

I agree that it's not that critical for themes, but I think it would
make the user interface more consistent. Another question is whether
this consistency is worth the binary size increase etc.
Received on 2009-06-30