Xfce panel translucent

Brian J. Tarricone bjt23 at cornell.edu
Mon Oct 4 11:48:08 CEST 2004

On 10/04/04 10:40, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> >On 10/04/04 01:52, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> >
> >>Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> >>
> >>>(note: i'm actually advocating ditching the partial struts in the case 
> >>>that
> >>>a compositor is active, as i think the translucent idea is much cooler 
> >>>^_^.)
> >>
> >>I really klemmer this idea. Eye-candy may be a good thing to catch 
> >>interest to xfce, but it cannot replace functionality!
> >
> >
> >you're missing the point.  you seem to have this predjudice that says that
> >translucency is _only_ eye-candy.  it _does_ have a functional purpose,
> >especially in this case.
> Ok, ok, I may be a aggrieved by aqua, where eye-candy mostly prevents 
> functionality, until I disable it, of course. :-) What I wanted to say 
> was simply: Adding eye-candyness is ok, but don't remove existing 
> functionality.

no, what i'm trying to say is that making the panel translucent adds
functionality (makes it possible to see windows under it), which is useless
unless you remove the current functionality that doesn't allow windows
under the panel (personally, i've always thought this was dumb).

look at it this way:  you see it as "add eye candy -> remove existing
functionality."  what it really is is this: "add functionality (that also
happens to be eye candy) -> remove existing functionality that makes
the new functionality somewhat pointless, and is unnecessary with the
new functionality".

it's fine for xfwm4 to avoid placing windows under the panel, but if i
move a window under the panel myself, i really want it to go there.  in
this case, xfwm4 is getting in my way; it's annoying.

at any rate, is this translucent panel thing going to be optional?  if not,
i think that's a bad idea.  as benny points out, some people don't like
it and want to disable it.


More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list