Re: "Desktop preferences" as a top-level item

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com> writes: 
> This looks a little less idiotic if we replace "Theme" with "GTK+ Theme"
> as was suggested elsewhere. 

We are NOT putting the string "GTK+" in the GUI. Really, what are you
thinking?

> That may argue for splitting out the WM
> theming and FreeDesktop.org-style icon sets into separate capplets,
> however.

Remember one big problem here is that we already have the max capplet
count, so adding two seems a bit questionable.

> I agree that a better grouping might
> combine GTK+, WM, and desktop-icon themes into one capplet (with
> separate controls, of course) as has been suggested elsewhere, though I
> think the "meta-themer"/Theme Set capplet would reduce the need for such
> grouping.

The purpose of the grouping is to reduce the number of items - there
are too many.

> > In this setup we're still missing one possibly important panel, namely
> > Colors where you can just change colors (overriding the theme
> > presumably). [1] 
> 
> Hmm, why would we do this when we are suggesting combining WM appearance
> and GTK+ theme into the same capplet?  It's not clear to me that this
> level of control is really warranted in our menus... I think if we split
> Colors out from GTK+ Theme, we'd need to do some additional refactoring
> as well.  Having General (aka Theme Set) and GTK+-Theme *and* Colors
> seems over-redundant even to me ;-)  

People like to set their colors - otherwise they can't make the
desktop ugly enough. ;-) Don't ask me.

We may not want colors, but it's something I've seen mentioned pretty
often.
 
> There's no guarantee that a given gtk-engine will even pay attention to
> colors, is there?  So I don't know how this would work in the "general
> case".

Engines should use the colors. I would say an engine that doesn't is
broken. Though of course engines can do whatever they want.

Anyway the word "General" seems like an interesting line of thought.

Havoc