Pale Moon forum

Unstable 6900 is away! Enjoy.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Unstable 6900 is away! Enjoy.

Upgraded without issues (so far)

snertev wrote:

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Unstable 6900 is away! Enjoy.

Upgraded without issues (so far)

How do you like the primary UI modifications? I am interested in people's opinions regarding what could be called a restoration of it. Specifically, is this what you expected would be the result of me creating this project?

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:

snertev wrote:

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Unstable 6900 is away! Enjoy.

Upgraded without issues (so far)

How do you like the primary UI modifications? I am interested in people's opinions regarding what could be called a restoration of it. Specifically, is this what you expected would be the result of me creating this project?

I like it. It's "seamonkeyasque" and no nonsense.

Since we're talking about UI, is there any chance to re-include Compact headers <https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/th ... actheader/>?

I know there is the extensions, but I think Compact headers (and sparing UI real estate for mail content and messages list) may be a good addition in a "no nonsense" application.

Just a kind RFE.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:How do you like the primary UI modifications?

The UI modifications are going in the right direction.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Specifically, is this what you expected would be the result of me creating this project?

Yes, it is.

Extension seems to work just fine from what I can tell.. However, do note that the header in-line toolbar isn't long for this world which is why it is hard hidden.. However, there is scripting that relies on it being there so that is why it isn't just dead.

At that point, the extension would need a fork to remove code for the header toolbar.

Additionally, there is a reason it is "seamonkey-esque" is because Thunderbird is a direct fork of the same mailnews client code.. However, I would appreciate not referring to SeaMonkey when describing my applications. It betrays the decisions leading to what I am trying to accomplish.

Also, what isn't obeying native OS styling on Windows and what version of Windows are we talking about?

@snertev OH you want that built in.. WELL maybe.. Not right now though. I will consider it though for a future enhancement.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:@snertev OH you want that built in.. WELL maybe.. Not right now though. I will consider it though for a future enhancement.

Thanks.

Hello from Germany
Install it, import 4 imap accounts and one RSS Feed, everything works well.
Good work.
One question I have:
I use FireTray as extension, so I only have a little envelope in the panel
Is it planed to implement something in Interlink what can do that, so that I dont need Firetray ?
Firetray isnt under devlopement since 2015 (But it works)

Using the Linux Version

Thanks for the update and the Account Settings improvement, it all fits nicely now.

The UI looks very nice, however: everything (not just Account Settings) is now significantly smaller on my 125% DPI 1680x1050, to the point of not being comfortable to use. As a comparison, it now looks much smaller than Thunderbird, FossaMail and the previous Interlink version - it obviously scales differently.

I know you said "you are not designing it to be used with anything but 100%" but it now seems the Windows DPI setting is being ignored and forced at 100%. I'm hoping it's a bug or something like that?

Interlink 52.9.6880: Interlink 52.9.6900: W10 1803 Pro x64 (17134.407)

back2themoon wrote:now seems the Windows DPI setting is being ignored and forced at 100%. I'm hoping it's a bug or something like that?

It is by design: 7cc7dd201263b78f9402c1814136bdfe5d5b8f5d.

yami_ wrote:It is by design: 7cc7dd201263b78f9402c1814136bdfe5d5b8f5d.

Thanks for that. I changed it to 1.25 and everything seems back to the usual size with no side-effects. Isn't it going to be a problem though with all those Windows installations that by default use a DPI setting higher than 100%?

back2themoon wrote:

yami_ wrote:It is by design: 7cc7dd201263b78f9402c1814136bdfe5d5b8f5d.

Thanks for that. I changed it to 1.25 and everything seems back to the usual size with no side-effects. Isn't it going to be a problem though with all those Windows installations that by default use a DPI setting higher than 100%?

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Have to set layout.css.devPixelsPerPx to 1.0 so the UI will be rendered at 100% instead of system dpi. You can change it back to -1.0 if you want.. But I am not taking any design issues resulting of non-default DPI.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:But I am not taking any design issues resulting of non-default DPI.

But that's what I'm saying: 100% is not the default. Depending on the size of the screen, Windows will default to something else. I remember on a 1920x1080 screen, the default was 150%.

Again, it's not a problem for me (the about:config setting solves everything) but it might be a problem for someone who first installs it and finds an impossibly small UI without knowing why and what to do.

No it won't. That is NOT how display settings work. Unless that changed and if so then wow.. What the fuck.. In any event, I am going to add a preference in Preferences with a drop down box with preset values. Likely, DPI: System Default, 100%, 125%, 150%, 200%. But the default will stay at 100%.

I can confirm I've seen Windows 10 set the DPI to 125% on one or two occassions. Didn't bother to look into why it did so; one instance was an update from Win 7 to 10 and the other was installing Win 10 from scratch.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:No it won't. That is NOT how display settings work. Unless that changed and if so then wow..

It will. You can blame Microsoft, but that's the way it works now. My final thought on this:

In the unlikely event a problem caused by higher DPI appears, it is quite possible that it's also present on 100% and usually worth fixing, or at least noting. Out of hundreds programs I've tried, I can only remember one that has some minor issues with higher DPI the developer can't/won't solve. My guess is that the negative backlash you will be getting for not respecting the Windows default... by default (be it 125, 150, 175 etc.) will be much more significant.

And again, thanks for providing the option and making everything configurable. Looks great.

edit: this is from a 1080p display. The "recommended" is the default.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:Also, what isn't obeying native OS styling on Windows and what version of Windows are we talking about?

The OS is Windows 7. Here are the differences:

1. The Tree-View styling
   treeViewInterlink.png
   treeViewWinAPI.png
   treeViewWinAPINoLines.png
   treeViewWinAPINoLinesClassic.png
   Native examples are using SetWindowTheme(hwnd, L"Explorer", NULL).
   1. The "collapse" button should be black when using the Windows Explorer-style Tree-View
   2. The height of each item is 22px (18px when using Classic Windows theme) in Interlink and 16px in the Native Tree-View
   3. When using Classic Windows theme the native Tree-View "expand" and "collapse" buttons will change while Interlink Tree-View icons will not
   4. It is impossible to recreate Interlink Tree-View styling using the Native controls, because TVS_FULLROWSELECT cannot be used in conjunction with the TVS_HASLINES and because TVS_HASBUTTONS requires TVS_LINESATROOT to be used.
2. The menu bar
   menuBarInterlinkClassic.png
   menuBarWinAPIClassic.png
   1. The Interlink menu bar is 1px taller than the native menu bar
   2. When Using Classic Windows theme in Interlink there is an additional horizontal divider above the menu bar
   3. The underlines of specific menu bar items letters are always visible in Interlink (and other UXP-based applications) while the native menu bar will only show them when you pres the ALT key

I did not notice other differences.

The Tree-View styling is largely intentional except it likely shouldn't have the dotted tree lines on Aero.. However, I am not bothered with it.. Sometimes a few liberties need to be taken.

As for the top border on Windows Classic (or Windows GDI Native) that shouldn't be there for sure.. I'll look into it but it isn't a blocker for release. Might just remove the toolbar lines from Windows Classic all together.. Actually the border lines shouldn't be there at all except I like them.. But I will check out to see if something can be done for the errant border between the titlebar and menubar.

Windows Classic is lower priority than Aero or Aero-class rendered widgets.

back2themoon wrote: edit: this is from a 1080p display. The "recommended" is the default.

W10 1920x1080.jpg

However, the recommended zoom in Win 10 doesn't change according to display size in pixel, but according to its PPI (pixels per inch) because a 1920x1080 size has not the same physical dimension on a 15" notebook or on 27" monitor.

If you want to play with PPI, use this calculator:

https://www.sven.de/dpi/

And we should also talk about user's view distance, but it will be for another time.