Version: (using KDE 4.1.3) too obscure colors section There is no hint what the "common colors" combo does, there is no label, nothing. Just combobox. This is UI flaw, user has to read what this element is what for. The name is unfortunate too -- there is "common colors" but there is no "rare colors". No matter what user chooses there is no change -- user should see correct example, but she/he sees only changing colors, not the affect of those colors (it is impossible due to fact, the example is static, so changes to colors could be irrelevant to elements in the example).
> There is no hint what the "common colors" combo does, there is no label, > nothing. Just combobox. This is UI flaw, user has to read what this element is > what for. "Common Colors" are those a user is most likely to want to fiddle with. I'm not sure what you mean by some of the other comments. I'd entertain suggestions for a better name, though? > there is "common colors" but there is no "rare colors" Sure there are. Changing the colors within a set individually corresponds to "rare colors". Since they are subcategorized, they aren't labeled as a single group. > No matter what user chooses there is no change -- user should see correct > example, but she/he sees only changing colors, not the affect of those colors > (it is impossible due to fact, the example is static, so changes to colors > could be irrelevant to elements in the example). Yes, this is a real problem that I've been meaning to do something about, if I ever find the time :-(. It needs a new preview widget, probably one that shows only the relevant set that is less a "real-life" preview but just a big box with the appropriate colors shown. (However I would consider this a separate issue.)
Matthew, so the this combobox serves as filter, and the common colors are really "all" (colors), right? So if this is correct my suggestion is Show colors: [ all v ] > However I would consider this a separate issue. Ok, should I post it? I would paste then your idea, because it is exactly what I meant :-)
> so the this combobox serves as filter, and the common colors are really "all" > (colors), right? No. "All" colors would number something like 70 colors. "Common Colors" is actually "funny" because changing the "extra" foreground colors (link - positive) changing that color in all sets (except inactive, which changes it in everything /but/ selection, and has a separate entry for just inactive selection). Eventually I want to make it "smarter", so that while it will still change all sets, it will only apply the exact color to view, and use a similar color for other sets. Maybe it would make sense to "replace" the combo with an "Advanced >>" button (that would re-show the combo when pressed)? > Ok, should I post it? That would be nice, thanks :-).
Oh, I am getting it -- so common colors are colors that come from the whole color set and you picked up the, well, most common :-) But in such case, "common colors" should be not a parent category for the others, now it looks like this common colors selection window so it says, that for example window colors are subset of common colors. So if I understand it now correctly the wish is: * please add label "show colors" * adjust all names to left * rename colors in the list of the common colors so it would be clear where did they come from (from which set), so instead of "background" -> "background of the window" And back in the future ;-) https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163555
Created attachment 28641 [details] simple patch I've done a patch for adding the label. If you agree I can commit it.
Created attachment 28642 [details] small fix
SVN commit 885710 by mwoehlke: add label to color set dropdown, de-indent other sets BUG: 175404 M +28 -9 colorsettings.ui WebSVN link: http://websvn.kde.org/?view=rev&revision=885710
> rename colors in the list of the common colors so it would be clear where did > they come from (from which set), so instead of "background" -> "background of > the window" I don't get this, the color you refer to is already named "Window Background"??
Bad example :-) Inactive text, active text. I cannot say for sure which set they come from. Maybe just column would be enough? Inactive text | --? here is the name of the source set | < color >
> Bad example :-) Inactive text, active text. I cannot say for sure which set > they come from. Ah... Well, that's because those are the "funny" ones. They /don't/ come from any one set; changing one of those changes that role for /all/ sets. (Except for inactive, where "inactive text" changes it for all sets except selection, and there is a separate "selection inactive text".) Again, I'd entertain suggestions how to make that more understandable...
So it is a macro, and not symmetric. My suggestion, please add category (as I already said), for thos items category would be "all" (*). This would have two advantages: + description by design, it is clear now what the item does + those colors in "common" filter would be symmetric (*) or "all w/o selection" (or mention all the names), I does not see why having the same color for all text even for selection is wanted by anyone. The most usual case is inverted color for selection, disabled text or not.