| 1 |
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 02:41 pm, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 2 |
> Samuel Baldwin wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> That's something I'll never understand - why make the text on |
| 5 |
> >> a terminal harder to read, by using transparency? |
| 6 |
> >> Granted, it'll look better, but that's it. |
| 7 |
> >> IMO transparency is one of the most useless features. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > True, it's not that usefull, but it does look nice. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Yes, it certainly has the potential to look nice. No doubt. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I don't use transparency. I don't care about it enough to spend the time to |
| 14 |
get the right balance. Also, I use a laptop, and my screen's brightness |
| 15 |
fluctuates with my battery level. So, the opacity for being plugged in isn't |
| 16 |
the same for being unplugged. I just use this green on black scheme which is |
| 17 |
visually intimidating but remarkably easy to read at all different screen |
| 18 |
brightnesses. I like it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > It provides a nice |
| 21 |
> > change of pace, so that way, when you're running a terminal in X, it |
| 22 |
> > doesn't look exactly like the regular shell. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Well - a terminal is something to work with. And this has to |
| 25 |
> be functional and not "provide a change of pace". |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Totally. That's why I push YaKuake. It's so darn accessible that it's there |
| 28 |
when I want it. I learned most of what I know about Linux command shells |
| 29 |
with YaKuake on Kubuntu, just because it was so easy to be reading a web |
| 30 |
page, pop down YaKuake, try something out, all while still looking at the web |
| 31 |
page. It was truly awesome. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> > As far as making it harder |
| 34 |
> > to read, I've found it quite easy. If it conflicts with your background |
| 35 |
> > design, just change the text color. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> My text color is black, as my background is white, which is, BTW, |
| 38 |
> the best to read for the majority of people (if you're not handicapped, |
| 39 |
> that is). That's so, because the contrast between the text and the |
| 40 |
> background cannot be higher than with black on white (or white on |
| 41 |
> black). |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
You're using a CRT and a desktop, no doubt. You see, reccommending this for |
| 44 |
all users is a big no-no, since on many displays a higher contrast ratio will |
| 45 |
make eyestrain a first rate problem. I don't think there's any setting that |
| 46 |
is best, rather, I think users should be encouraged to experiment around to |
| 47 |
find the best balance of eye candy, readability, and functionality for them |
| 48 |
and their monitor and lighting. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> > It is also possible to turn the |
| 51 |
> > transparency off, if needed. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> Yep. That's what I do. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Same. Partially because my poor Intel i810 series graphics chip would wither |
| 56 |
up and die if I tried to put any more compositing than I do now with it |
| 57 |
(none.) |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
My CPU ends up rendering most things, which is annoying, since my CPU spikes |
| 60 |
whenever I'm rendering anything. Oh well... someone will make a better |
| 61 |
driver someday. Either way I don't care - if I need power I go to my desktop |
| 62 |
machine, which will make most other boxes look like small graphing |
| 63 |
calculators with USB ports. : ) |
Archives