From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:56:32 +0900 Message-ID: <871v3o2y9r.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87oc6vm67v.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87vd12z77n.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87ipx289cu.fsf@nzebook.haselwarter.org> <877hdg3b4w.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1296795933 18309 80.91.229.12 (4 Feb 2011 05:05:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Drew Adams , Philipp Haselwarter To: John Yates Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 04 06:05:29 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PlDrM-0004SF-Np for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:05:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50777 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PlDrM-0002YC-2F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:05:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43406 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PlDrH-0002Y7-6m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:05:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PlDrG-0000EA-3p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:05:23 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:58251) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PlDrF-0000E3-KE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:05:22 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EED99706A6; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:05:19 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 894DC1A2C59; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:56:32 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" ed3b274cc037 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:135554 Archived-At: John Yates writes: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull = wrote: >=20 > > The basic problem is that faces are not colors. =A0Faces are not fonts. > > (Where have I heard this before? ;-) =A0A face is a semantic component, > > intended to express meaning. =A0Common meanings should have a common > > expression. >=20 > Your argument assumes that users internalize strong associations from > the visuals of a face to very specific semantics. No, it doesn't. It simply assumes enough association will carry over. Use of bold and italic for emphasis in text modes is very common. Use of red for errors is very common. I'm not saying that *all* faces should be derived from some base set, but Drew (and now you) seem to be saying that derivation from a base set is useless. The law of the excluded middle does not apply to all vs. none, you know. > Further you assume that users expect faces to be reused > consistently across modes based on conformance to clear semantic > models. Nope, you're projecting. Of course (Emacs) users *don't* expect that, because Emacs currently *doesn't* do it. > A corollary is that introduction of a new semantic notion not only > requires introduction a new face but also requires that it be > visually distinct. I'm not sure that follows from your assumptions, but in any case I neither accept them nor believe them necessary, so that is not a consequence of advocating a base set of faces. >=20 > Put another way you expect users to be conscious of distinct faces and > their detailed semantics. > My personal experience contracts that picture. Well, of course it does! Emacs is very useful to you, and currently fails to provide consistent faces, so you conclude that consistent faces are unnecessary. No big surprise there! > 2) is the overall effect pleasing or jarring? is there unity and > consistency in the use of colors and weights? (often when first > experimenting with a new mode I feel that once again I am waging my > eternal battle against emacs "fruit salad") Now there's a strong argument for derivation. *If* those faces that can be derived *were* derived, then you could fix up the base faces (even resetting some that you think are stupid to `default' so they don't show up at all or whatever), and use doremi to tone down the rest, perhaps. > theme, it conveys visual emphasis or lack thereof. An important > consequence is that I feel no great need to convey every new semantic > via a new, visually distinct face. Would it really annoy you if Emacs had pleasing faces, but dammit, they're way too consistent? ;-)