qpdfview team mailing list archive

["Benjamin Eltzner" <b.eltzner@xxxxxx>]

Hi,

first of all: You're the coder, so as it's do or die, you do, I die. :-)

> > 
> > In other viewers it seems usual that right-/left-arrow scroll by
> > one page at a time, while page-up/-down scroll by the screenfull.
> > Did I mention, that I am somewhat ui-conservative?
> 
> I don't see the argument here as I already commented on the "the other
> programs do it that way". The functionality is now there and it is not
> less accessible in any way.

Okay, since you seem to really not understand this point (despite my bestest effort), here's an explanation: I expect _most_ users to be ui-conservative. So the whole point of "others do it like that" is really "users will probably expect this behaviour (at least I do)". You are of course free to question the value of this argument, but if it were your aim (I assume it is not) to win users by making the program easily accessible, I suppose this breed of arguments might be worth considering. :-)

> Besides, some comment on what you actually would like as the default
> toolbar entries would have been nice.

If I have configuration options I do not care that much about defaults, so I thought I'd not spoil this discussion for those who really rely on the fallback.

> > Also a question from the layman: Would it be much harder to make
> > "render_from_disk" available as an option in a config file instead
> > of a buildtime option? I have some esoteric use cases for this
> > options, but I understand it is for the better not to use it as
> > default. Still it would be great if it could be simply changed
> > without recompiling.
> 
> It don't want to expose this a configuration option as I really want
> to discourage its usage. (E.g. by making it a necessity to recompile.)
> The semantics are unclear and prone to failure. The program will not
> become unresponsive if this is disabled, just take a while longer to
> render those pages. (Poppler 0.20 has some improvements for image
> masks in the SplashOutputDev which should help with rendering speed
> for your corner case. So there will be even less of a reason to use
> this in the near future.)
> 
> So it is there if you feel reckless and really want it. But it will
> probably never become a configuration option. Actually, for me, the
> worst part is that I released the older versions with this as the
> default.

I do not quite get the problem ("The semantics are unclear and prone to failure"). I think, if it were simply a sibylline option in a config file, the average user would be sufficiently shielded from it... Also I do not see the problem in pointing out its potentially problematic behaviour in the help-file, but as I said: You're the coder.


Cheers,

Benjamin
-- 
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de