World: r3wp

Henrik, BrianH: could you please ask Carl to add one rather simple 
style, called Icon? It should consist of Image, text description, 
and it should be selectable (blue translucent color upon selection). 
I would like to see, how such selection is being drawn, if not part 
of draw block. If you want small but real-life app to test, please 
port effect-lab2.r to VID 3.4. We can then compare. Gab's version 
handles dragging and mouse-pointer change too.

when we get to it, we'll look at it.

Graham, drag support is already in the new GUI. All that would be 
needed for full drag-and-drop is some idea of what dropping is supposed 
to mean, which varies depending on the situation.

Same with multidrop - it depends on what you are dragging. It's an 
application issue.

Pekr, R3 will use real modules. The initial public development releases 
of the GUI will not. The module system (and even spec) are not finished. 
We will be able to resume work on the module system soon, and the 
design of the new GUI's code is being done with a module system in 
mind. It's helping to do the GUI first because it serves as a use 
case and inspiration for low-level semantic fixes like a module system.

The GUI system may end up being one module, but may end up being 
more than one. System design first, code organization later once 
we have an idea what it is that we are organizing. The entire GUI 
code base will be small enough for one (smart) person to understand.

Henrik - can the panel be non-rounded, just boxy? Will it be adjustable?

It's not a setting, but I guess it can be added.

but then again, would I want to? It depends on what we want to add 
as user settings for the skin.

simply put, button and even panel rounding, even if rather small, 
does not look good, when you place stuff one to each other. E.g. 
with buttons tied close together. While I like button as is, I don't 
like rounded panel at all. Once again it is my preference. IIRC RebGUI 
has it as a preference and all styles adjust. First thing I do is, 
that I go for strict boxy desing, no rounding ....

If such things are not settable, what chance do I have? To restyle 
all styles it should apply to?

Then it would not be possible to set. I'll see if Carl will let me 
add it later.

sometimes you want to merge buttons into a group.

So, then you only want the outermost buttons to be rounded at their 
extremes.

yes, that's true. unfortunately it complicates the draw block for 
BUTTON, so I would probably want to make that a separate style.

Carl is very adamant that the draw blocks stay simple.

Would that be complex?

if you have a group of two buttons or three or more?

and then you have the events for each button ....

I think this is a pretty common style for Mac OS ??

yes, since I need to replace all boxes with a shape, plus the shape 
is conditionally made for which button in the row is going to be 
rendered.

the events are a separate issue.

I found that when I tried to stick a few buttons together in rebgui, 
I always saw the rounded edges of one of the buttons

I'm arguing against it, only because of complexity, not because it 
can't be done, because it easily can. The skin is supposed to be 
a good example of a skin that most REBOLers will be able to understand 
easily. So especially draw blocks must be very simple, so the user 
can tell what's going on.

This is the DRAW code for BUTTON:

draw: [
		; shadow
		pen false
		fill-pen shadow-fill
		box 0x1 (area-size + 0x2) 3

		; edge
		fill-pen edge-color
		box 0x1 (area-size + 0x1) 3

		; background
		grad-pen linear 0x1 1 (area-size/y - 1) 90 1 1 area-fill
		box 1x2 (area-size - 1x0) 2
	]

And that's about as bad as it's allowed to get.

draw: ?

it complicates the draw block

. There would be no complication, if frames would be used! You would 
use different draw block. I'll tell you, where will it lead with 
more complicated styles or states and their combination (animation 
of style, up, down, over, disabled, focused, selected, on-drag-over 
- and that is just button - it imo can't be covered by one draw block) 
- ppl start to patch the system. You will have no other chance, than 
to introduce kind of frames in no system way, e.g. providing something 
like face/state/frames: [], where you will store alternate draw blocks, 
and you will switch them on various events.

Pekr, frames for such a thing would make the style 3-4 times larger.

Why? As far as I can see, the main problem is following simplification 
= 1 style = 1 gob = 1 draw block. And then somewhere under the hood, 
the text gob is applied over it? (that is the section which is not 
apparent from docs so far, how text is being handled). What is the 
point to have gobs at low level, and their ability to be chained 
(contain another gobs), if not used? Some things would not need to 
be repeated (and hence style bloated with x-times the draw block 
for each state), but gobs could be layered ....

Using multiple gobs for a thing like Graham suggests would make the 
style even more complex and we're back to VID3. Not having to manage 
gobs at all is quite a relief.

Henrik - I understand very well, why Carl tries to keep the design 
simple. And so far, VID 3.4 looks good, that is apparent. But - when 
something is imo oversimplified and we start to hear - "you can't 
do it easily, or the system would be complex", then we should ask 
ourselves - will user call for such features, or not? Because if 
users will require such features, they will start patching the system, 
which is not prepared to be patched, and it can lead to kludgy solutions 
...

We turned the system from low level clean gob design to single-gob-SVG 
renderer ...

OK, I'll wait for addition of focusin/selection system, as it might 
prove, that single draw block might not be sufficient, because it 
can't handle conditional drawing - to draw something, or not. E.g. 
I would like to have some glow like outline blurred effect for focused 
face. How do I do it with one single draw block?

Pekr, it doesn't matter how you put it together, but adding gob handling 
for each style will make this system more complex. Besides, I'm still 
not yet working on compound styles. I'm learning as I go. I know 
perhaps 30-40% of the system right now.

Nothing is set in concrete yet, right?

For focusing and such effects, it makes more sense to separate that 
out into a small gob system layered on top of the GUI. Similarly 
for drag'n'drop, bubble help, etc. It's not hard to do.

Graham, for anything that involves floating gobs, no. I think Carl 
has thought it up, just not coded it yet.

Henrik: sounds interesting. While I would rather probably have styles 
living in their autonomy = reacting to various events themselves 
(as is correct aproach in OOP system), I do remember how I did 'disabled/'enabled 
style - inserting face (gob) in front of style, so it was independent. 
So you are right, it can be done different way, but e.g. animation 
of the style will not be possible ...

Graham - the truth is, it is set in stone already. The desing follows 
the logic of one draw block per style, plus minus parametrisation 
via facets and selection of gradients to express materials or something 
like that. That is why my opinion is, that we should not do the mistake, 
of first trying more complex styles, but - we should aim to introduce 
all possible subsystems, as focusing, disabling, accelerator keys, 
keyboard navigation. Those things are not vertical, but horizontal, 
and they can show, that you have difficulcy to express it ... hence 
Henrik's proposal, that such "additional" stuff (which is additional 
only because the design does not count them in), can be layered by 
different aproach ...

we should aim to introduce all possible subsystems

 ... I think we should aim to have something, anything, out ASAP with 
 as few subsystems as required to get a workable result that satisfies 
 80% of folks. The other 20% can wait another 10 years for "all possible 
 subsystems" to be designed and implemented.

Ashley - I am not the one who agrees to everything designed by Guru. 
If you are like that, well then. But - we were promissed, that this 
time, the system is going to be done the right way. I really don't 
understand your position, as you surely do understand, what we are 
talking about here. It is not about rounded buttons and such details! 
"all possible arguments" is just one single thing - OS compatible 
behaviour. And if you suggest we should wait 10 years here - well, 
time to move away from VID then ...

Pekr, I think it's too early to comment on parts that have not yet 
been written or decided. Can we settle for discussing parts that 
have already been done?

Note: If my site is slow or down, it's because it's raining. My wifi 
connection is bad, because a big tree has started blocking my antenna's 
line of sight. I've not received permission yet to cut the tree down.

poison it!

I mean, top the tree ..ie. trim the branches

:-)

yes Henrik, slow. I thought it might be my browser. Last months, 
there is something happening on the internet overall. Lot's of "invalid" 
connections dropped on our routers ...

I sometimes have to reload sites. But maybe just my AVG plus Vista 
plus FF3 combination, dunno ...

Your site is so slow, that I can sometimes even see textual path 
of the file, which starts to be downloaded a bit later :-)

Since no matter how long we spend on VID++, it can't be released 
without a finished core, doesn't it make sense that work on core 
be restarted?