Subject: screenshots

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:31:14 -0600

Hm, the screenshots look terrible with my 1024x768x16 visual. I wonder
if that can be improved a bit. I think the thumbnails are too big to
look like real thumbnails and too small to look good (the menu entries
look like fly droppings).

We should take some effort to get screenshots that really look good, even
when viewed with few colours. Perhaps there should be sections of
screenshots that look good with 8/16/24/32 bit planes. We don't want
people to run away horrified because they vievew gradients with 1000
colours on a 256 colour display :)

Dan, can you send me the marble you put on window borders? Viewing it
with netscape gives me the creeps. I want to judge the difference
first-hand.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

P.S.: Nice work, Dan. 

-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Michael Han <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 07:53:03 -0700

Previously...
>look like fly droppings).

That's strange. They're all gifs, so they should only be asking for
8-bits of color. I for one was glad to see gifs instead of jpegs. I
suppose pngs would be okay, too.

>colours on a 256 colour display :)

I quantized mine down to a 5-bit color-palette .gif. Didn't seem to
lose much color detail when I did this. See
http://www.best.com/~mikehan/fvwm2rc.html

Oh, and how do I submit a screenshot? I have a newer one than the one
on my page.
-- 
[email-masked]                         http://www.best.com/~mikehan/
coffee achiever                              San Francisco, California
"It is better for people to think your [sic] a fool, than for you to open:your 
mouth and remove all doubts." - some fool
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:01:30 -0400

> look like fly droppings).

Any suggestions are welcome.  I used Gimp to create Mikhael's thumbnail,
and xv to create mine.

Using Gimp I just asked for a .25 reduction, using xv, I asked for 2
1/2 size reductions.  (Using the theory that throwing away 1/4 of the
pixels would cause the least distortion.)

I know the thumbnails are sketchy,  but the full size screenshots look
good to me.  (1280x1024x8.)

> colours on a 256 colour display :)

Agreed.  I have access to a 1600x1200x24 visual, I mean to give that
a try.

I hope to include some full size screen fragments:

Vector buttons, gradient menus, FvwmButtons, etc.

> with netscape gives me the creeps. I want to judge the difference

I'll send it off the list.

> P.S.: Nice work, Dan. 

Thanks.

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:09:13 -0600

> suppose pngs would be okay, too.

Hm, my graphics adapter has a peculiar notion of how colours should look
like. And netscape dithered parts of the images. I have too view them
at home to judge the differences.

> Oh, and how do I submit a screenshot? I have a newer one than the one

Dan, would you take care of adding screenshots from people without
commit privileges?

Bye

Dominik ^_^

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:13:06 -0600

> good to me.  (1280x1024x8.)

What irritates me is that the thumbnails are still quite big. They didn't
look like thumbnails (21" screen with 1024x768) but like real desktops.
I think reducing the size by another step will help.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:22:05 -0400

> http://www.best.com/~mikehan/fvwm2rc.html

Looks cool.

> Oh, and how do I submit a screenshot? I have a newer one than the one

Send them to me (not the list).  Please, not everyone at once.

Include some text.  I'd like to at least identify the things on the
window that would be of interest.  Perhaps some config file fragments.

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jun 1999 11:06:01 -0500

Should I be doing anything with the contents of the fvwm-web module?  I can
set up an auto-update to the web site if it's to the point where you want
to do that.

 - J<

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:10:20 -0400

> set up an auto-update to the web site if it's to the point where you want

An auto-update  would be great.  Do it  at your convenience.  I expect
that  there will be lots   of changes for  a  while.  I haven't really
thought  about the link  from the main pages  yet  (but we should have
one).

Moving the rest of  the web stuff  out of  the main distribution  into
fvwm-web makes sense.

I think we could shed our "legacy icons" the same way.

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:44:53 -0400

> I think reducing the size by another step will help.

They don't look like much at all reduced another step.  Of course this
is display dependent.  At 640x480, each one would fill 1/2 the screen.

Right now, I'm doing all my viewing using "file:".  I'll have to check
this out over  a 28K modem, it might   be best to  skip the thumbnails
completely like some of the other sites I checked do.  We'll see.

---

From: Brad Giaccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:53:36 -0400

> completely like some of the other sites I checked do.  We'll see.

Dan, why don't you check out the size of the enlightment thumbnails for
the screenshots.  As I recall they aren't very large thumbnails just
large enought to give you an idea of what is going on.

-- 
--- There are two kinds of knowledge, you either know the answer or
			you know where to find it
		      -Kane, Johnson, and anonymous
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:05:46 -0400

> large enought to give you an idea of what is going on.

	I tried chopping them approximately in half (about 160x128), and they
look fine on my 1280x1024 display. Of course, I'm using a truecolor
visual, so I can't judge the effects of dithering.

	I think that thumbnails don't need to give more than a suggestion of
what the real think looks like.

	Also, as Dominik suggested earlier, we may want to have different sets
for different color resolutions - maybe not *all* possible ones, but at
least for pseudocolor and truecolor.

	FVWM can produce some really nice effects with a truecolor visual, and
there's no reason we shouldn't show that off, but the thumbnail page
should indicate that certain shots won't look good with 256 colors or
less. By the same token, we do want to have some that look good at any
resolution, 'cause 8-bit folks like eye-candy too. (Dan, I think you
mentioned a few days ago what a remarkably good job CDE did with
backgrounds/color schemes - they definitely showed what can be done with
limited resources in this area.)

	(I don't currently have access to the good ol' 256-color Sun box I used
to use, so I can't really judge how things look in 8-bit. Even if I
crank my XAccel Linux server down to pseudolor, the color still looks
better than it did on the Sun.)

- Bob

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:40:46 -0400

> large enought to give you an idea of what is going on.

Well, I thought  my 1/2, 1/2  theory  made sense, but  uniform size is
nice too.   The   thumbnails I saw   were  160x120 so   thats  the new
"correct" size.

Interestingly, both the thumbnails  and the full  shots are jpgs.   We
are still using gifs.