Menubar and Toolbar back color 
Author Message
 Menubar and Toolbar back color

I think VisualWorks 7 is great, but I do have an issue with the coloration
of toolbars and menubars.  They show up white, and don't reflect the color
of real Win32 menubars and toolbars on my XP box, which are sort of a tan
color.  I was disappointed to find that while the XP look fixes this in
7.1, that the Win95 and Win2000 looks don't.

Is there a patch for this?

Thanks,

-Carl
------------------------------------------------------------------

 author of Liberty BASIC, twice a PC Magazine Awards Finalist!
  http://www.*-*-*.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------



Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:13:39 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color
Carl,

Quote:
>I think VisualWorks 7 is great, but I do have an issue with the coloration
>of toolbars and menubars.  They show up white, and don't reflect the color
>of real Win32 menubars and toolbars on my XP box, which are sort of a tan
>color.  I was disappointed to find that while the XP look fixes this in
>7.1, that the Win95 and Win2000 looks don't.

>Is there a patch for this?

Well, it's like this. For each platform (Mac, MacOSX, X11, Win95/NT, Win98/ME/2K
and WinXP), we ask the system for it's basic color settings. Yes, right from the
system.

However, if you are running a look that is not "Platform" (such as MacOSX on
XP), then the system goes into "Fake" color mode, in that it has default colors
for various things.

Now, if you are running a look that is "partially" platform (such as Win95 or
Win98 on WinXP) then some of the colors will be asked for from the system (those
that are common across all looks) and some are faked (such as the "black"
foreground color of a Win98 Group Box label when running on XP).

Interestingly, if you have a WinXP look, and you have messed with the "Window
Classic Style" settings, when you are running Win95 or Win98 look, it picks up
those Classic Style colors, which may not even match your "Window XP Style"
settings.

Thank you Microsoft.

                                And So It Goes
                                     Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Go Smalltalk!



Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:18:03 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color


Quote:
> I think VisualWorks 7 is great, but I do have an issue with the coloration

> of toolbars and menubars.  They show up white, and don't reflect the color

> of real Win32 menubars and toolbars on my XP box, which are sort of a tan
> color.  I was disappointed to find that while the XP look fixes this in
> 7.1, that the Win95 and Win2000 looks don't.

> Is there a patch for this?

Sorry Carl,

This is a behaviour of emulated widgets in VW. Pollock is geared towards
fixing this issue by reusing more of the host systems knowledge about L+F.



Fri, 30 Sep 2005 07:04:31 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color

: Carl,

:>I think VisualWorks 7 is great, but I do have an issue with the coloration
:>of toolbars and menubars.  They show up white, and don't reflect the color
:>of real Win32 menubars and toolbars on my XP box, which are sort of a tan
:>Is there a patch for this?

: However, if you are running a look that is not "Platform" (such as MacOSX on
: XP), then the system goes into "Fake" color mode, in that it has default colors
: for various things.

<some stuff snipped>

That makes a lot of sense.  I see that if I use the classic Windows look
in XP that it does get the colors I expect.  Of course this is the way it
should be.  However, I guess this means that XP doesn't return the
expected color for the background when using the new XP look.

Thanks Sam!  

-Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC
http://www.libertybasic.com



Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:23:18 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color

Quote:
><some stuff snipped>

>That makes a lot of sense.  I see that if I use the classic Windows look
>in XP that it does get the colors I expect.  Of course this is the way it
>should be.  However, I guess this means that XP doesn't return the
>expected color for the background when using the new XP look.

>Thanks Sam!  

>-Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC
>http://www.libertybasic.com

As horrible as it may be, there must be a way of hacking XP to extract the
actual colors it's using.

Ian

---
http://www.upright.net/ian/



Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:08:16 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color
Ian,

Quote:
>As horrible as it may be, there must be a way of hacking XP to extract the
>actual colors it's using.

You'd think so, but no, sorry. XP's GUI is a skinnable system now, and
therefore, the skins can define, outside of the old API, any color, bitmap or
whatever.

One more reason we need to move to native widgets as soon as we can (which will
still take years).

                                And So It Goes
                                     Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Go Smalltalk!



Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:56:19 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color

Sames,

Have you written anything that explains in some detail why you think platform widgets are a good thing?  If so, could I get a pointer?

Thanks much,

Diana

Quote:

>Ian,

>>As horrible as it may be, there must be a way of hacking XP to extract the
>>actual colors it's using.

>You'd think so, but no, sorry. XP's GUI is a skinnable system now, and
>therefore, the skins can define, outside of the old API, any color, bitmap or
>whatever.

>One more reason we need to move to native widgets as soon as we can (which will
>still take years).

>                                And So It Goes
>                                     Sames
>______________________________________________________________________

>Samuel S. Shuster [|]
>VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
>Go Smalltalk!



Sun, 02 Oct 2005 03:46:42 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color


Quote:
>Sames,

>Have you written anything that explains in some detail why you think platform widgets are a good thing?  If so, could I get a pointer?

Here's my view on it - the .NET thing is going to be at least as big
as the Java thing was.  that means that in the medium term, Windows
GUI's will be important, and being compliant with the platform L&F
will matter more again (it mattered A LOT circa 1995, faded, and is
now returning).

ok, now notice that Windows supports skins (or themes).  So do KDE and
Gnome.  Which means that it's well nigh impossible to emulate the L&F
completely, because there's not just one.

Now, one can argue that most corp desktops will never use this.  on
the other hand, corp architecture groups will care about it - it's
just the sort of mostly irrelevant detail that they seem to love
focusing on.  

In any case, the end goal for VisualWorks will be to maintain platform
portability as we have it now - drop an image on Windows, start it on
linux (etc).

Quote:

>Thanks much,

>Diana


>>Ian,

>>>As horrible as it may be, there must be a way of hacking XP to extract the
>>>actual colors it's using.

>>You'd think so, but no, sorry. XP's GUI is a skinnable system now, and
>>therefore, the skins can define, outside of the old API, any color, bitmap or
>>whatever.

>>One more reason we need to move to native widgets as soon as we can (which will
>>still take years).

>>                                And So It Goes
>>                                     Sames
>>______________________________________________________________________

>>Samuel S. Shuster [|]
>>VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
>>Go Smalltalk!

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView


Sun, 02 Oct 2005 04:07:32 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color

Quote:


>>Sames,

>>Have you written anything that explains in some detail why you think platform widgets are a good thing?  If so, could I get a pointer?

>Here's my view on it - the .NET thing is going to be at least as big
>as the Java thing was.  that means that in the medium term, Windows
>GUI's will be important, and being compliant with the platform L&F
>will matter more again (it mattered A LOT circa 1995, faded, and is
>now returning).

>ok, now notice that Windows supports skins (or themes).  So do KDE and
>Gnome.  Which means that it's well nigh impossible to emulate the L&F
>completely, because there's not just one.

>Now, one can argue that most corp desktops will never use this.  on
>the other hand, corp architecture groups will care about it - it's
>just the sort of mostly irrelevant detail that they seem to love
>focusing on.  

>In any case, the end goal for VisualWorks will be to maintain platform
>portability as we have it now - drop an image on Windows, start it on
>linux (etc).

Speaking of which.. I know for some apps, developers would like to make it
easy for their own apps to be "skinnable" so that their own end-users can
make new custom looks for their favorite Smalltalk app.  :)  It's cool to be
in vogue, and sex sells, unfortunately.  If it didn't, we wouldn't see so
much of it on the internet, in M$'s apps/OS, etc... :-)

I can hear the Cincom team saying now "yeah, we'll make that a really high
priority" but I don't imagine it will.  <g>  In fact, a lot of these
skinnable apps out there have their own look to them itself, and don't use
native widgets either.  VW already has some good underpinnings for
supporting this, it just needs better looks & feels, and more support for
this.  The difference is that the skinnable apps often look really {*filter*},
unlike most VW apps.  :D   Even still, nearly every Smalltalk GUI builer has
very poor support for creating custom bitmap dialogs and putting transparent
buttons/regions overtop of it.

However, most of these "skinnable apps", are usually small applications that
sit in the system tray and do little things, or are music players, or what
have you, and are traditionally occupied by the space of applications
developed in Visual C++/Basic.  VW might be a bit too bloated for developing
those kinds of applications, but if the runtime size gets trimmed down like
others have said is possible, then it could be feasible to develop these
kinds of applications with VW as well.

Ian

---
http://www.*-*-*.com/



Sun, 02 Oct 2005 06:33:21 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color

Quote:

>However, most of these "skinnable apps", are usually small applications that
>sit in the system tray and do little things, or are music players, or what
>have you, and are traditionally occupied by the space of applications
>developed in Visual C++/Basic.  VW might be a bit too bloated for developing
>those kinds of applications, but if the runtime size gets trimmed down like
>others have said is possible, then it could be feasible to develop these
>kinds of applications with VW as well.

BTW.. An example of one of these skinnable apps might be Netscape 7.
I think VW would attract a lot more attention if it had the capabilities to
build GUI's that looked as good as that and are also skinnable, even if VW
didn't have native widget support.

Ian

---
http://www.upright.net/ian/



Sun, 02 Oct 2005 06:43:51 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color


Quote:




<snip>

There's a skin look policy in the public store.  It needs to be
updated for VW 7, but it supports user creation of skins

Quote:

>Speaking of which.. I know for some apps, developers would like to make it
>easy for their own apps to be "skinnable" so that their own end-users can
>make new custom looks for their favorite Smalltalk app.  :)  It's cool to be
>in vogue, and sex sells, unfortunately.  If it didn't, we wouldn't see so
>much of it on the internet, in M$'s apps/OS, etc... :-)

>I can hear the Cincom team saying now "yeah, we'll make that a really high
>priority" but I don't imagine it will.  <g>  In fact, a lot of these
>skinnable apps out there have their own look to them itself, and don't use
>native widgets either.  VW already has some good underpinnings for
>supporting this, it just needs better looks & feels, and more support for
>this.  The difference is that the skinnable apps often look really {*filter*},
>unlike most VW apps.  :D   Even still, nearly every Smalltalk GUI builer has
>very poor support for creating custom bitmap dialogs and putting transparent
>buttons/regions overtop of it.

>However, most of these "skinnable apps", are usually small applications that
>sit in the system tray and do little things, or are music players, or what
>have you, and are traditionally occupied by the space of applications
>developed in Visual C++/Basic.  VW might be a bit too bloated for developing
>those kinds of applications, but if the runtime size gets trimmed down like
>others have said is possible, then it could be feasible to develop these
>kinds of applications with VW as well.

>Ian

>---
> http://www.*-*-*.com/

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.*-*-*.com/


Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:47:31 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color
In the Cincom Public Repository exists a "SkinLookPolicy" bundle or
package. Has anybody used it?
Quote:


> >However, most of these "skinnable apps", are usually small applications that
> >sit in the system tray and do little things, or are music players, or what
> >have you, and are traditionally occupied by the space of applications
> >developed in Visual C++/Basic.  VW might be a bit too bloated for developing
> >those kinds of applications, but if the runtime size gets trimmed down like
> >others have said is possible, then it could be feasible to develop these
> >kinds of applications with VW as well.

> BTW.. An example of one of these skinnable apps might be Netscape 7.
> I think VW would attract a lot more attention if it had the capabilities to
> build GUI's that looked as good as that and are also skinnable, even if VW
> didn't have native widget support.

> Ian

> ---
> http://www.upright.net/ian/



Sun, 02 Oct 2005 12:41:19 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color

Quote:

> In the Cincom Public Repository exists a "SkinLookPolicy" bundle or
> package. Has anybody used it?

I played with it once and loved the sweetnes of that eye candy.
However I never included it in an app because it is not maintained by
Cincom:
I would expect loads of subtle bugs to be reported by clients
experimenting with it if I did.

--
Reinout Heeck
-------------
Soops - Specialist in object technology.
http://www.soops.nl/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dit e-mailbericht is alleen bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n).
Gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan. Indien u niet de"
geadresseerde(n) bent wordt u verzocht de verzender hiervan
op de hoogte te stellen en het bericht te verwijderen.
Door de elektronische verzending kunnen aan de inhoud van
dit bericht geen rechten worden ontleend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail message is intended to be exclusively for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient you are kindly requested not to
make any use whatsoever of the contents and to notify the sender
immediately by returning this e-mail message. No rights can be
derived from this message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------



Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:30:52 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color
Diana,

Quote:
>Sames,

>Have you written anything that explains in some detail why you think platform widgets are a good thing?  If so, could I get a pointer?

No, but I'll take a moment here to state my views.

First off, let me say that I am neither actively for or against native widgets.
They are just among the things that I consider and think about when thinking
about GUI frameworks and where the industry is going in terms of GUI and so on.

Let me take you back to ESUG France last year, when I had the opportunity to
have a meaningful discussion with Dave Thomas about the subject. Before that, I
was heavily leaning towards the opinion that emulated widgets are "Good Enough,"
and that I shouldn't concern myself with the issue.

However, Dave pointed out to me a long term trend that I didn't recognize. Let
me paraphrase it here. Going way back, there was Smalltalk. All widgets were
emulated, no big deal. Then, the Mac and Windows came on the scene, and slowly
but surely, the trend moved towards native widgets. This started in the early
90's and moved to it's peak about 1995 or so.

Then came Java and Linux and "Browsers". Well, before that of course, but their
influence increased along that time. Anyway, X11 had the a minimal effect that
some people no longer cared and to some extent expected their apps to look
different from one X11 window manager to another. Java and Swing and the Sun
Hype behind them did a lot to sell the "Emulated Widgets Are OK" story.
Browsers, in that each one seemed to display the same app differently also had
their effect.

So, from roughly 1998 to about a year ago or so, emulated widgets became OK
again, and the push for native widgets fell off considerably.

Then came (not in order) the increasing influence of the following: Skinnable
X11 Window Managers (GNOME and KDE), SWT and it's "Back To Native And Fast",
Windows XP being Skinnable, MacOSX, Jaguar and .NET.

This leads us to where we are today. We have seen the time of Emulated Widgets
Being OK (for the 2nd time) starting to slip. There is an increasing move to
native widgets so that applications can reasonably match the environment they
run in.

What has happened is that the various OS's and framworks (.NET) have moved away
from the need to improve their basic underlying GUI frameworks, and towards ever
faster changes in looks and feels. Example: The original MacOSX and Jaguar, only
a couple of years apart, but with small and meaningful changes in looks and
feels. Example: Windows XP basically totally moving away from their "Get The
Color Of This Thing" API towards a Skinable "Show The Widget" policy. Example:
.NET not truly supporting ANY kind of the old API.

Bottom line, while I personally don't care that much, I have to keep an eye on
what is happening and what will be happening. From my talk with Dave, I came to
the belief that in about 2 years or so, the move towards customers expecting the
effect of native widgets, to be fully on us.

We emulated widget GUI framework developers will never be able to keep up. Of
course, by We, I mean Me, Sam. VisualWorks can not be left behind again. In
order for us to supply applications that look and feel the way YOUR customers
expect, we need to provide support for native widgets.

This is not to say get rid of emulated widgets, but rather to have a framework
that can support either and both. Pollock is that framework.

For now, I'm concentrating on creating a GUI framework that is fully emulated
widgets, but enables support for native widgets. So, when Pollock is "Done", if
then, as I expect, there is a deepening need for native widgets, we will be able
to get them going without having to redo a whole framework. On the other hand,
if then, I'm wrong, then we'll have a great emulated widget GUI framework.

                                And So It Goes
                                     Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Go Smalltalk!



Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:34:44 GMT  
 Menubar and Toolbar back color

Quote:





><snip>

>There's a skin look policy in the public store.  It needs to be
>updated for VW 7, but it supports user creation of skins

Neat!  Would be pretty cool if you guys fixed it up for 7 and supported it
and/or integrated it with Pollock.

Ian

Quote:
>>Speaking of which.. I know for some apps, developers would like to make it
>>easy for their own apps to be "skinnable" so that their own end-users can
>>make new custom looks for their favorite Smalltalk app.  :)  It's cool to be
>>in vogue, and sex sells, unfortunately.  If it didn't, we wouldn't see so
>>much of it on the internet, in M$'s apps/OS, etc... :-)

>>I can hear the Cincom team saying now "yeah, we'll make that a really high
>>priority" but I don't imagine it will.  <g>  In fact, a lot of these
>>skinnable apps out there have their own look to them itself, and don't use
>>native widgets either.  VW already has some good underpinnings for
>>supporting this, it just needs better looks & feels, and more support for
>>this.  The difference is that the skinnable apps often look really {*filter*},
>>unlike most VW apps.  :D   Even still, nearly every Smalltalk GUI builer has
>>very poor support for creating custom bitmap dialogs and putting transparent
>>buttons/regions overtop of it.

>>However, most of these "skinnable apps", are usually small applications that
>>sit in the system tray and do little things, or are music players, or what
>>have you, and are traditionally occupied by the space of applications
>>developed in Visual C++/Basic.  VW might be a bit too bloated for developing
>>those kinds of applications, but if the runtime size gets trimmed down like
>>others have said is possible, then it could be feasible to develop these
>>kinds of applications with VW as well.

>>Ian

>>---
>> http://www.*-*-*.com/

><Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
>James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
> http://www.*-*-*.com/

---
http://www.*-*-*.com/


Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:55:45 GMT  
 
 [ 19 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Background colors of Menubar and Toolbar

2. Seperator line between the menubar and toolbar

3. Color MENUBAR

4. Toolbar button background color

5. Toolbar Color

6. Delaying back-to-back-reports

7. back to back text are visible from one side

8. WUARCHIVE is partially back, the PAL seems to be fully back

9. WUARCHIVE is partially back, the PAL seems to be fully back

10. Toolbar & Menubar connectivity ...

11. menubar & toolbar connectivity ?

12. Setting a web hex color as background color for a canvas

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software