From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Yates Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Eliminating a couple of independent face definitions Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 22:55:03 -0500 Message-ID: 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 1296791721 3153 80.91.229.12 (4 Feb 2011 03:55:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 03:55:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Philipp Haselwarter , Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 04 04:55:16 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 1PlClN-0001Aa-Vc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 04:55:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33171 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PlClN-0001U2-AY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:55:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40248 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PlClH-0001Tg-Em for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:55:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PlClF-00046n-IB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:55:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41]:59674) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PlClF-00045P-BJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:55:05 -0500 Original-Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so1190444vws.0 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:55:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2aeyBYt0EDWOjWj2h3cQY+HLdQgB9ldMAweB9/z0Uac=; b=LBzBskR+lHmYo7zcXEENHzV4JuU7iQ/9+UmJ8iBjEi6KICsVBg99BKZfSx88YGcvfq /m1HF6XV8BxUxI4HGbJvXEm/XlgzSADjAJoQmTLTUUrnytsPqpfYuAsKED2jSr1Tji05 HLLtnA6mJZTnYQGZL9V/HIl0GGAJsmUmWWfxQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=e32iLs+xqGSOYgXuBz/6Ts6Lc199rOEagd0f3x/KZX3shznXt2BZSiX+Xwq8OaGfay KnnqzLwsmSeYseKrxNAT3HPvCdVYb+aB69wxnMfHuCwq61+75tA5Q0D2asmwuyb5gfFB aR1l17sDWWY3RiUZgvP55ZcKfsRpDloS2QUFc= Original-Received: by 10.220.178.136 with SMTP id bm8mr138196vcb.52.1296791703854; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:55:03 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.220.187.199 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:55:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <877hdg3b4w.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-Google-Sender-Auth: CaaWJGK05rdEZmmuZzuHWjmnrP4 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.212.41 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:135551 Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wr= ote: > 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. Your argument assumes that users internalize strong associations from the visuals of a face to very specific semantics. Further you assume that users expect faces to be reused consistently across modes based on conformance to clear semantic models. 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. Put another way you expect users to be conscious of distinct faces and their detailed semantics. My personal experience contracts that picture. I really have only two criteria on which I asses a set of faces (either out of the box or as I tweak): 1) does the choice of visual (d)emphasis make sense? are fundamental structural elements easy to identify and follow? are points that require my attention appropriately easy to recognize? are less important elements easy to skim/skip? 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") So my mental association is not with any specific semantics of a particular face but only with the extent to which, within a given 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. /john