Customize interface: better face editor

Customize interface: better face editor

[Per Abrahamsen]

The current face editor looks like this (in the -nw version, which
currently work better than the windowing version):

    Widget Button Face:(sample) [Hide]
       [State]: you have edited the value as text, but you have not set the fac
    Face used for widget buttons.
    Parent groups: [Widget Faces]
    Attributes: [ ] Font family: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Width: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Height: [Value Menu] *
                [X] Weight: [Value Menu] bold
                [ ] Slant: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Underline: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Overline: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Strike-through: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Box around text: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Inverse-video: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Foreground: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Background: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Stipple: [Value Menu] *
                [ ] Inherit:
                    [INS]

I wonder if it would look better as:

    Widget Button Face: (sample) [Hide]
       [State]: you have edited the value as text, but you have not set the fac
    Face used for widget buttons.
    Parent groups: [Widget Faces]
    Inherit attributes from these faces:
    [INS]
    Attributes of this face:
    [DEL] Weight: [Value Menu] bold
    [Add attribute]

Pressing "Add attribute" would pop-up a list of attributes.  If you
selected e.g. "Foreground" from that list, the display would change
to: 

    Widget Button Face: (sample) [Hide]
       [State]: you have edited the value as text, but you have not set the fac
    Face used for widget buttons.
    Parent groups: [Widget Faces]
    Inherit attributes from these faces:
    [INS]
    Attributes of this face:
    [DEL] Weight: [Value Menu] bold
    [DEL] Foreground: black
    [Add attribute]

or 

    Widget Button Face: (sample) [Hide]
       [State]: you have edited the value as text, but you have not set the fac
    Face used for widget buttons.
    Parent groups: [Widget Faces]
    Inherit attributes from these faces:
    [INS]
    Attributes of this face:
    [DEL] Weight: [Value Menu] bold
    [DEL] Foreground: [Value Menu] *
    [Add attribute]

depending on whether we really need to be able to explicitly set the
"*" attribute value.

To implement this, we would need a new widget which was a mix between
the editable-list and the checklist widgets.  Or said in another way,
the new widget would be a compact form of the checklist widget, the
same way the menu-choice widget is a compact form of the
radio-button-choice widget.

Re: Customize interface: better face editor

[Miles Bader]

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> The current face editor looks like this (in the -nw version, which
> currently work better than the windowing version):
...
> I wonder if it would look better as:
>
>     Widget Button Face: (sample) [Hide]
>        [State]: you have edited the value as text, but you have not set the fac
>     Face used for widget buttons.
>     Parent groups: [Widget Faces]
>     Inherit attributes from these faces:
>     [INS]
>     Attributes of this face:
>     [DEL] Weight: [Value Menu] bold
>     [Add attribute]

This feels too heavy-weight; the current face editor -- and as I noted
in a previous post, you seem to be using an extremely out-of-date
version in your examples -- has the big advantage that everything's
presented up-front.

The current style gives you a good overview of the `possibilities' for a
face, which I think makes face editing easier; there aren't all that
many attributes, and the visual impact of unselected attributes is
pretty minor (much more so in the current version than in the version
you're using).

-Miles
-- 
Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.

Re: Customize interface: better face editor

[Richard Stallman]

	[INS]
	Attributes of this face:
	[DEL] Weight: [Value Menu] bold
	[Add attribute]

This would be less convenient and harder for beginners to understand.
I am not in favor of it.