On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 14:21, snickell stanford edu wrote:
> > Another idea would be to not install said .directory files, or
> > replace the
> > icons in them with ones that look like directories, instead of
> > hacking up
> > the code to ignore them.
>
> Having icons that look like folders isn't a good solution since it will
> not match the current theme.
>
> The reason that we don't just remove the icon specification from the
> .directory file is that the panel needs to read from this scheme too,
> and the panel "sub-directories" should have icons (since the arrow is
> already used to specify that it is a "directory" not a "file").
>
> But I think that the general case behavior for setting images on folders
> in Nautilus should probably be that it works as an emblem. Having
> folders that don't look like folders can be cute (I have some myself),
> but I think its a lot better for usability if people can consistently
> expect to tell which items are folders.
>
> -Seth
It is definately better, yes. I know I personally noticed immediately
the trepidation about the "will this try to fire up something else or
just go into a subfolder" question when I first tried the nautilus view.
Greg Merchan had an interesting idea about creating a "template" image
which would appear behind the actual prefs icon, similar to the Mac.
I would just like to see a "folder" emblem (using the current theme's
folder) or the stock preferences image, depending on whether it's a
folder or a prefs item.
Peace,
Jim Cape
http://ignore-your.tv/
"No cause, no God, no abstract idea can justify the mass
slaughter of innocents."
-- Edward Said
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part