[68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files

[Matthies, Niklas]

It annoys me that files modified in-memory now have their editor label
bolded. I much prefer the asterisk that was previously used. Is there an
option to get the old behavior back?

-- Niklas Matthies

[Oliver Bruening]

i agree. the asterisk ist much better. bold looks like selected, not modified.

--- Matthies, Niklas <niklas.matthies@...> schrieb am Di, 27.10.2009:

> Von: Matthies, Niklas <niklas.matthies@...>
> Betreff: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files
> An: netcat@...
> Datum: Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2009, 17:59
> It annoys me that files modified
> in-memory now have their editor label
> bolded. I much prefer the asterisk that was previously
> used. Is there an
> option to get the old behavior back?
>
> -- Niklas Matthies
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Leed III, John P]

+1

________________________________________
From: Oliver Bruening [obruening@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:12 PM
To: netcat@...
Subject: AW: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files

i agree. the asterisk ist much better. bold looks like selected, not modified.

--- Matthies, Niklas <niklas.matthies@...> schrieb am Di, 27.10.2009:

> Von: Matthies, Niklas <niklas.matthies@...>
> Betreff: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files
> An: netcat@...
> Datum: Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2009, 17:59
> It annoys me that files modified
> in-memory now have their editor label
> bolded. I much prefer the asterisk that was previously
> used. Is there an
> option to get the old behavior back?
>
> -- Niklas Matthies
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
http://mail.yahoo.com

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential and protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

[Matthies, Niklas]

I filed an issue: http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=175546
Please do vote for it.

-- Niklas Matthies



On Tue, 27. Oct 2009 19:15, Leed III, John P wrote:

> +1
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Oliver Bruening [obruening@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:12 PM
> To: netcat@...
> Subject: AW: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files
>
> i agree. the asterisk ist much better. bold looks like selected, not modified.
>
> --- Matthies, Niklas <niklas.matthies@...> schrieb am Di, 27.10.2009:
>
> > Von: Matthies, Niklas <niklas.matthies@...>
> > Betreff: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files An: netcat@...
> > Datum: Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2009, 17:59
> > It annoys me that files modified
> > in-memory now have their editor label
> > bolded. I much prefer the asterisk that was previously used. Is there an
> > option to get the old behavior back?
> >
> > -- Niklas Matthies
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen
> herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the
> sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> information that is confidential and protected by law from
> unauthorized disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
> and destroy all copies of the original message.

[Oliver Bruening]

i use an editor theme with dark background.

if i click "find usages" in my ruby code, the results are displayed in the theme colors, except of the background color, which is white :-)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Ulf Zibis-2]

Am 27.10.2009 18:59, Matthies, Niklas schrieb:
> It annoys me that files modified in-memory now have their editor label
> bolded. I much prefer the asterisk that was previously used. Is there an
> option to get the old behavior back?
>
> -- Niklas Matthies
>
>  

I like both, but I guess, bold wastes more space then the asterisk.
bold: 40 %
asterisk: 60 %

See also: http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=80890

-Ulf

[Matthies, Niklas]

On Tue, 27. Oct 2009 20:07, Ulf Zibis wrote:
:
>
> See also: http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=80890

It's sad to see how stuff like this that should be simple remains
unresolved for so long.

(In Vim you'd be able to just configure a user-defined format string to
display editor labels with any possible content/styling/colors you'd
want.)

-- Niklas Matthies

[esmithbss]

+1


Eric M. Smith
314.315.2710


On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:59 PM, "Matthies, Niklas" <niklas.matthies@...
 > wrote:

> It annoys me that files modified in-memory now have their editor label
> bolded. I much prefer the asterisk that was previously used. Is  
> there an
> option to get the old behavior back?
>
> -- Niklas Matthies

[Matthies, Niklas]

My issue has been closed with: "Use of boldface & italics is
intentionally the default in 6.8. -J-Dnb.tabnames.html=false can be used
to revert to the 6.7 behavior. Please do not reopen; use mailing lists
if you wish to comment."

While a command line option is better than nothing, I'm still not
exactly happy with the decision that has been made. Apparently someone
was unhappy with the asterisk, or wanted to showcase new HTML features.
Furthermore I believe that keeping the issue open to collect votes and
comments would be appropriate. It's clear from the agreement here that
there IS an issue.

-- Niklas Matthies


On Tue, 27. Oct 2009 23:45, Eric M. Smith wrote:

> +1
>
>
> Eric M. Smith
> 314.315.2710
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:59 PM, "Matthies, Niklas"
> <niklas.matthies@...
>  > wrote:
>
> > It annoys me that files modified in-memory now have their editor

label
> > bolded. I much prefer the asterisk that was previously used. Is
there an
> > option to get the old behavior back?
> >
> > -- Niklas Matthies

[Moises Lejter-3]

It seems a shame - the impression it leaves is that the people who are making this decision aren't really listening to their users (us)...  I think that, up to now, everyone who cared has come out in favor of the old approach.

While it is true that a command-line property is better than nothing, it is also true that this is not all that convenient a thing to change.  Would they perhaps consider making "-J-Dnb.tabnames.html=false" the *default*, and those who really like the new approach can just set that property to true, instead?

I think another poster was right - pretty much every other editor out there uses "*" to mean "modified".  It seems to me that bold usually means "Selected" - which would be quite misleading, once more than one file is modified...

Couldn't one also make an argument from accessibility?  A "*' by the name must be easier to distinguish than bold vs. regular font...

Moises

[Vincent文生 Cantin郭]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Hi,

I agree that it is misleading, and I was mislead quite a few time when I gave my first try to 6.8 last night.
I prefer the old behavior, i.e. having the "*" for unsaved file, and I wish it to be the default.
Maybe people "upstairs" need to use a voting machine on the netcat participants before they decide changes like this one.

---

From: moilejter@...
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:05:53 -0500
To: netcat@...
Subject: Re: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files

It seems a shame - the impression it leaves is that the people who are making this decision aren't really listening to their users (us)...  I think that, up to now, everyone who cared has come out in favor of the old approach.

While it is true that a command-line property is better than nothing, it is also true that this is not all that convenient a thing to change.  Would they perhaps consider making "-J-Dnb.tabnames.html=false" the *default*, and those who really like the new approach can just set that property to true, instead?

I think another poster was right - pretty much every other editor out there uses "*" to mean "modified".  It seems to me that bold usually means "Selected" - which would be quite misleading, once more than one file is modified...

Couldn't one also make an argument from accessibility?  A "*' by the name must be easier to distinguish than bold vs. regular font...

Moises

---

Achetez un nouveau PC et bénéficiez de Windows 7 dès sa sortie ! En savoir plus

[Dennis Kühn-2]

To be honest, I find it a bit weird that people express their criticism
on this issue only now. This feature has been in NB6.8 since many weeks
and meanwhile we're in beta.

I myself am rather indifferent about the whole thing - I liked both
options. It's important though to keep an eye on the use of color coding
because color blindness [1] is very common for men.

Regards
Dennis
--
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness
--

>  
>
>  
>
> *Von:* Moises Lejter [mailto:moilejter@...]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2009 01:06
> *An:* netcat@...
> *Betreff:* Re: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files
>
>  
>
> It seems a shame - the impression it leaves is that the people who are
> making this decision aren't really listening to their users (us)...  I
> think that, up to now, everyone who cared has come out in favor of the
> old approach.
>
> While it is true that a command-line property is better than nothing, it
> is also true that this is not all that convenient a thing to change.  
> Would they perhaps consider making "-J-Dnb.tabnames.html=false" the
> *default*, and those who really like the new approach can just set that
> property to true, instead?
>
> I think another poster was right - pretty much every other editor out
> there uses "*" to mean "modified".  It seems to me that bold usually
> means "Selected" - which would be quite misleading, once more than one
> file is modified...
>
> Couldn't one also make an argument from accessibility?  A "*' by the
> name must be easier to distinguish than bold vs. regular font...
>
> Moises
>

[joshis]

... I was personally waiting for the first negative reaction from the
outside the Sun to start commenting to this subject...

--pd

Dennis Kühn wrote:

> To be honest, I find it a bit weird that people express their
> criticism on this issue only now. This feature has been in NB6.8 since
> many weeks and meanwhile we're in beta.
>
> I myself am rather indifferent about the whole thing - I liked both
> options. It's important though to keep an eye on the use of color
> coding because color blindness [1] is very common for men.
>
> Regards
> Dennis
> --
> [1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness
> --
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Von:* Moises Lejter [mailto:moilejter@...]
>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2009 01:06
>> *An:* netcat@...
>> *Betreff:* Re: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files
>>
>>  
>>
>> It seems a shame - the impression it leaves is that the people who
>> are making this decision aren't really listening to their users
>> (us)...  I think that, up to now, everyone who cared has come out in
>> favor of the old approach.
>>
>> While it is true that a command-line property is better than nothing,
>> it is also true that this is not all that convenient a thing to
>> change.  Would they perhaps consider making
>> "-J-Dnb.tabnames.html=false" the *default*, and those who really like
>> the new approach can just set that property to true, instead?
>>
>> I think another poster was right - pretty much every other editor out
>> there uses "*" to mean "modified".  It seems to me that bold usually
>> means "Selected" - which would be quite misleading, once more than
>> one file is modified...
>>
>> Couldn't one also make an argument from accessibility?  A "*' by the
>> name must be easier to distinguish than bold vs. regular font...
>>
>> Moises
>>

[Glenn Holmer]

On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 19:05 -0500, Moises Lejter wrote:
> the impression it leaves is that the people who are making this
> decision aren't really listening to their users

+1

> pretty much every other editor out there uses "*" to mean "modified".
> It seems to me that bold usually means "Selected" - which would be
> quite misleading

+1

--
____________________________________________________________
Glenn Holmer                          gholmer@...
Software Engineer                        phone: [phone]
Weyco Group, Inc.                          fax: [phone]

[P.N.]

I don't understand the discussion - it's already a long time ago, since
the <bold> is used. Why don't You say earlier, what You want? Now,
feature freeze is through, so nobody will change just a little bit of
the look&feel.

Kind regards

Peter


Vincent Cantin wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I agree that it is misleading, and I was mislead quite a few time when I gave my first try to 6.8 last night.
> I prefer the old behavior, i.e. having the "*" for unsaved file, and I wish it to be the default.
> Maybe people "upstairs" need to use a voting machine on the netcat participants before they decide changes like this one.
>
> From: moilejter@...
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:05:53 -0500
> To: netcat@...
> Subject: Re: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files
>
> It seems a shame - the impression it leaves is that the people who are making this decision aren't really listening to their users (us)...  I think that, up to now, everyone who cared has come out in favor of the old approach.
>
>
>
> While it is true that a command-line property is better than nothing, it is also true that this is not all that convenient a thing to change.  Would they perhaps consider making "-J-Dnb.tabnames.html=false" the *default*, and those who really like the new approach can just set that property to true, instead?
>
>
>
> I think another poster was right - pretty much every other editor out there uses "*" to mean "modified".  It seems to me that bold usually means "Selected" - which would be quite misleading, once more than one file is modified...
>
>
>
> Couldn't one also make an argument from accessibility?  A "*' by the name must be easier to distinguish than bold vs. regular font...
>
> Moises
>
>    
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tchattez en direct en en vidéo avec vos amis !
> http://www.windowslive.fr/messenger/

[JonathanGlass]

Yes too bad this has been closed.  I was about to vote for reverting to the asterisk.
Jonathan

----- Original Message ----
From: "Matthies, Niklas" <niklas.matthies@...>
To: netcat@...
Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 7:18:09 PM
Subject: RE: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files

My issue has been closed with: "Use of boldface & italics is
intentionally the default in 6.8. -J-Dnb.tabnames.html=false can be used
to revert to the 6.7 behavior. Please do not reopen; use mailing lists
if you wish to comment."

[P.N.]

Jonathan Glass wrote:
> Yes too bad this has been closed.  I was about to vote for reverting to the asterisk.
> Jonathan
>
Sorry, I don't understand the whole uproar. The feature is already
several weeks or even months old, and it doesn't really decrease
usability. If You just want to discuss Your preferences, You'd probably
better use nbdiscuss.

Kind regards

Peter

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Matthies, Niklas"<niklas.matthies@...>
> To: netcat@...
> Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 7:18:09 PM
> Subject: RE: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files
>
> My issue has been closed with: "Use of boldface&  italics is
> intentionally the default in 6.8. -J-Dnb.tabnames.html=false can be used
> to revert to the 6.7 behavior. Please do not reopen; use mailing lists
> if you wish to comment."
>
>

[JonathanGlass]

This is a cosmetic issue which didn't affect me enough to think about until others brought it up.  It seems not high priority, but I think most agree that an asterisk is a clearer and more universal indicator of modification than boldface and that it is awkward to adjust such a feature via a configuration line option.  

 

----- Original Message ----
From: Jonathan Glass <jonathanglass@...>
To: netcat@...
Sent: Wed, October 28, 2009 11:26:34 AM
Subject: Re: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files

Yes too bad this has been closed.  I was about to vote for reverting to the asterisk.
Jonathan

[P.N.]

I've never had to adjust it - just to think.

P.

Jonathan Glass wrote:

> This is a cosmetic issue which didn't affect me enough to think about until others brought it up.  It seems not high priority, but I think most agree that an asterisk is a clearer and more universal indicator of modification than boldface and that it is awkward to adjust such a feature via a configuration line option.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Jonathan Glass<jonathanglass@...>
> To: netcat@...
> Sent: Wed, October 28, 2009 11:26:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [68cat] [editor] Highlighting of modified files
>
> Yes too bad this has been closed.  I was about to vote for reverting to the asterisk.
> Jonathan
>

[Ulf Zibis-2]

What do you think about "r/o" against italics style?
It has been changed too.
Advantage of italics style:   needs less space in tab (note:
http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=80890)
Advantage of italics style:   is common an little more clear

-Ulf


Am 27.10.2009 18:59, Matthies, Niklas schrieb:
> It annoys me that files modified in-memory now have their editor label
> bolded. I much prefer the asterisk that was previously used. Is there an
> option to get the old behavior back?
>
> -- Niklas Matthies
>
>
>