Re: Review Request: --hard_coded_colors in kalarm

> On 2009-08-11 23:16:35, David Jarvie wrote:
> > This seems a sensible idea. The colours are ok except for the archived alarm colour, which is quite similar in the default KDE colour scheme to the disabled alarm colour. They need to be clearly distinct by default since disabled and archived status are very different.
>
> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>     It is? It should be purple (#644A9B) versus gray (#888786). Semantically speaking, VisitedText is best.
>    
>     If not Visited, what would you use?
>
> David Jarvie wrote:
>     I don't really care how the colour is classified, since there isn't one defined as "archived alarm". The important thing is that it's clearly different from the disabled alarm colour.

I, however, care about correct semantic use of our color roles (and I also feel that the difference between #644A9B and #888786 is sufficient).

As this deals with Usability, anyone else want to comment?


- Matthew


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1288/#review1989
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2009-08-12 00:48:33, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1288/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2009-08-12 00:48:33)
>
>
> Review request for usability and David Jarvie.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> Hard-coded colors are Evil (bad Usability, bad Accessibility, and just plain bad... not to mention not very aesthetic in this case IMO). This removes the major hard-coded colors in KAlarm (default alarm colors, colors in the alarm list), the latter of which are especially bad as they can be illegible in some color schemes.
>
> ...but there are others in at least eventlistmodel.cpp, messagewin.cpp, dbushandler.cpp and resourcemodelview.cpp. Depending on how motivated I feel, more patches might follow in the future.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
>   /trunk/KDE/kdepim/kalarm/kalarmconfig.kcfg 1010227
>
> Diff: http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1288/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> built and ran, colors were okay as checked by viewing in Settings, New Alarm, and a disabled alarm.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matthew
>
>

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability

Matthew Woehlke wrote:

> David Jarvie wrote:
> > Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> On 2009-08-11 23:16:35, David Jarvie wrote:
>>>> On 2009-08-12 00:48:33, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>>>> http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1288/
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard-coded colors are Evil (bad Usability, bad Accessibility,
>>>>> and just plain bad... not to mention not very aesthetic in
>>>>> this case IMO). This removes the major hard-coded colors in
>>>>> KAlarm (default alarm colors, colors in the alarm list), the
>>>>> latter of which are especially bad as they can be illegible
>>>>> in some color schemes.
>>>>
>>>> This seems a sensible idea. The colours are ok except for the
>>>> archived alarm colour, which is quite similar in the default KDE
>>>> colour scheme to the disabled alarm colour. They need to be
>>>> clearly distinct by default since disabled and archived status
>>>> are very different.
>>>
>>> It is? It should be purple (#644A9B) versus gray (#888786).
>>> Semantically speaking, VisitedText is best.
>>>    
>>> If not Visited, what would you use?
>>
>> I don't really care how the colour is classified, since there isn't
>> one defined as "archived alarm". The important thing is that it's
>> clearly different from the disabled alarm colour.
>
> I, however, care about correct semantic use of our color roles (and I also feel that the difference between #644A9B and #888786 is sufficient).
>
> As this deals with Usability, anyone else want to comment?

So... I added the usability group because David and I are disagreeing on
what color role to use for archived. See above.

I also want to add: what weight do we give semantic correctness?
Alternatively, anyone have a better suggestion what roles to use, that
wouldn't be bending semantics into a pretzel?

If desired, I can post a screenshot tomorrow.

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
And now back to your regularly scheduled e-mail.

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability

[David Jarvie-4]

> On 2009-08-11 23:16:35, David Jarvie wrote:
> > This seems a sensible idea. The colours are ok except for the archived alarm colour, which is quite similar in the default KDE colour scheme to the disabled alarm colour. They need to be clearly distinct by default since disabled and archived status are very different.
>
> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>     It is? It should be purple (#644A9B) versus gray (#888786). Semantically speaking, VisitedText is best.
>    
>     If not Visited, what would you use?
>
> David Jarvie wrote:
>     I don't really care how the colour is classified, since there isn't one defined as "archived alarm". The important thing is that it's clearly different from the disabled alarm colour.
>
> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>     I, however, care about correct semantic use of our color roles (and I also feel that the difference between #644A9B and #888786 is sufficient).
>    
>     As this deals with Usability, anyone else want to comment?
>
> Celeste Lyn Paul wrote:
>     Screenshot please? David is concerned that purple and gray might not be visually distinct enough, and maybe there isn't enough of a difference in contrast.

I have a screenshot, but I can't find any way of attaching it to this reviewboard.


- David


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1288/#review1989
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2009-08-12 00:48:33, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1288/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2009-08-12 00:48:33)
>
>
> Review request for usability and David Jarvie.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> Hard-coded colors are Evil (bad Usability, bad Accessibility, and just plain bad... not to mention not very aesthetic in this case IMO). This removes the major hard-coded colors in KAlarm (default alarm colors, colors in the alarm list), the latter of which are especially bad as they can be illegible in some color schemes.
>
> ...but there are others in at least eventlistmodel.cpp, messagewin.cpp, dbushandler.cpp and resourcemodelview.cpp. Depending on how motivated I feel, more patches might follow in the future.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
>   /trunk/KDE/kdepim/kalarm/kalarmconfig.kcfg 1010227
>
> Diff: http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1288/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> built and ran, colors were okay as checked by viewing in Settings, New Alarm, and a disabled alarm.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matthew
>
>

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability

On 2009-08-11 20:02, David Jarvie wrote:
> I have a screenshot, but I can't find any way of attaching it to this
> reviewboard.

Maybe only the submitter can add a screen shot as an actual screen shot?
Anyone can always upload an image somewhere and note the URL in a
comment, though.

--
Matthew
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability