The state of the Plastic scheme #1343
Replies: 3 comments 1 reply
|
Note: although I voted "I don't use Plastic at all" I would recommend to keep it because we never know who uses it for whatever reasons. It's good to see the result of these votes though. @MatthiasWM Thanks for starting this vote! |
|
Ditto Albrecht's comment... |
|
Yes, my commercial apps offer it as an option within the interface, and some folks like it because long ago that was the app's default, back when it was the only alternative to battleship gray. Yeah, let's not break old stuff please; breaking old things is 2.0 madness ;^) |
|
@erco77 wrote:
FTR: I fixed issue #464 by adding an option to modify the color average value used to "gray out" the box colors. The default is left at 75% for full backwards compatibility and can be changed in the range 10% to 100%. An environment variable is available for users to achieve this w/o modifying the program. For details see documentation of the new method I propose to close this poll. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
FLTK 1.5 will stay source code compatible with older versions as much as possible, but we may still have to break some eggs to make the cake more beautiful.
Issue #464 lingers for over 3 years now, and I want to close it one way or another.
The Plastic scheme to me is not very usable. It was an interpretation of the year 2000 macOS Aqua which Apple abandoned already in 2004 for aluminum looks. I find it outdated, low on contrast, and washed out.
The issue suggests to at least increase color intensity, which helps a lot, but is that enough?
18 votes ·
All reactions