Re: guided tour suggestions

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> writes:

>  > > Would it be possible to make the screenshots with emacs -Q so
>  > > that people see what they get out of the box ... ?
>  > 
>  > Good idea.
>  > 
>  > > The guided tour ... shows an Emacs a) compiled without a modern
>  > > toolkit (Gtk+, Windows or Mac) b) without menus c) without
>  > > toolbars d) without scrollbars (for heaven's sake!) e) without
>  > > font diversity. The only thing hinting at fonts is a man-page
>  > > f) without file dialogs g) without tooltips h) without any
>  > > non-ASCII character
>  > 
>  > When I get a chance, I will make some screenshots with the
>  > default UI setup, and with more complex formatting/characters.
>
> Remember, however, that GTK is _not_ the default toolkit for Emacs
> 22.1 so that won't be what people see out of the box.

Depends on the box.  I should hope that at least GNOME-centric
distributions with X11 would offer the Gtk+ version (Debian offers a
choice IIRC of what to install).  Anyway, if we wanted to go for "most
common case", we would need to show a Windows Emacs.  That is not
really what we want, either (though a single screenshot for each of
the major platforms for comparison would perhaps be nice: I find that
Emacs' visual integration into various desktops is a selling point
against XEmacs which shows quite the same quaint look everywhere), but
I suppose it pretty much depends on who is going to spend the effort
of creating the screenshots.

> Currently it won't be the default for Emacs 22.2 either.

I think there is still a difference between using configure without
options, and using no run-time options.  However, I would also
consider my compilation (using --without-toolkit-scroll-bars since
anything but Athena toolkit semantics is somewhat dysfunctional) unfit
for screen shots since it uses _special_ configure options resulting
in a look that won't likely be available "out of the box" for _any_
distribution.  It would be too complicated explaining that my look
does not result from a deficiency of Emacs, but a deficiency of Gtk+
and my way around it (with a little bit of help from Emacs).

-- 
David Kastrup