The previous commit did fix one such reason (multiple separators next to each
other), but I realized there is one other case where single separators are just
too big: when the menu is embedded in a GtkHeaderBar, each separator would have
a weird margin of several pixels (at least in my case, probably taken from the
underlying system theme). And worse, this margin was using another background
color.
So anyway this CSS rules takes care of not adding weird margins to menu
separators.
The checkbox label wasn't included the :hover CSS, so its background
color didn't change. This created a "box" around the label without the
highlight color when the mouse was over it.
This patch does the following things:
- An option "Merge menu and title bar" (this is hopefully more understandable
than calling it "Client-side decoration" or again "header bar") is added in
Preferences > Image Windows. This option triggers the restart warning.
Moreover when checked a small warning message will tell that in some cases, it
may not work (there are feedbacks of people having 2 title bars when using GTK
applications using CSD).
- For the reason evoked above (sometimes 2 title bars) and also because the CSD
concept seem really to divide people a lot (some love this as much as others
hate this), this new option "custom-title-bar" on GimpGuiConfig is FALSE by
default.
- When the option is checked, the image windows will use a GTK header bar
containing the menu, the window title (image name and information) as well as
the usual minimize/maximize/close buttons per your OS conventions.
- Since the header bar is set to be hidden when maximizing, if you checked "Show
menubar" for the "Default Appearance in Fullscreen Mode" in Preferences >
Image Windows > Appearance, the menu will be moved to its "old style"
position, i.e. above the canvas. This makes the menu possibly visible (if
relevant option is checked) even in fullscreen mode.
- I tweaked the Default theme to show the header bar with minimal height,
because I find GTK default theme's headerbar height unreasonably high
(especially if the point of the header bar is to save screen space). I am
unsure if this was the right move though, because maybe the default theme
should not do such choices (maybe this should go in the Compact theme?).
The Default theme may have been a bit too dark. Instead let's have it a
tiny bit lighter (and also foreground color a bit less white).
For now, the old "Default" dark theme doesn't disappear totally and is
moved to a "Darker" theme as we have been discussing and wondering on
whether this is prefered by some people (it is). Aryeom also thought a
darker theme may be a good idea.
Moreover Liam actually thought that losing some of the contrast
(especially with the text a tiny bit less white now) is not desired in
his case where eyes may not be as sharp as they used to. Therefore a
"High Contrast" theme may be needed.
Aryeom also suggested that sliders to choose colors could be a much more
generic solution, which might be possible yet would require more ugly
hacks generating on-the-fly theme changes (we do something similar for
dark theme choice already).
This is all work-in-progress and a result from Wilber Week 2023 work.
It seems I had forgotten some hardcoded color in there. I didn't notice it until
now, because it was not that bad in the few instances where it was shown (for
instance the comment field in export plug-ins), but I really realized there was
a problem with the Python console which was not too practical (white writing on
kinda light background).
I noticed some buttons had a bluish border, showing the system theme leaking
over our default theme. So I'm just overriding this with a grayscale color.
These 2 new rules are especially useful in dialogs so that you know what happens
when you hit "Enter". The "default" action (.suggested-action in GTK CSS) is the
action we set to be the active one by default. E.g. if you open a dialog and hit
Enter immediately, without touching any widget focus, this is what will be
activated.
The GTK CSS .default action on the other hand seems to simply be the button with
focus right now, which can be changed through Tab or other ways. If both types
of styles are visible, the .default one is the actually activated action (not
.suggested-action), which is why I make its style a bit stronger (solid rather
than dotted and a bit more opaque).
Also I discover the shade() function to reuse a color and adding it
transparency!
Checked buttons had a background using the @selected-color. This was because of
a too broad rule on `.text-button:checked`. Basically it looks like the broad
rules are not good because they sometimes override more accurate rules for
specific widgets.
I also make a few more rules a bit more accurate. Also I extend some CSS rules
for check and radio buttons.
We had some concept of slightly more extreme theme colors (i.e. darker in dark
themes) to color differently in some widget-in-widget cases.
For instance, we use this in the treeview list to separate it better from nearby
interface. But this extreme dark background may have been a bit "too dark", as
reported by Jacob. The goal is for this list to stand out, but maybe it was
standing out too much. Hopefully it's better now.
As a side change, I also add some borders to the top icon header (with "eye" and
"lock" icons) just above the list. I think it better explain the separation.
Just use an inverted logic for the selected text (i.e. white on black in light
mode, or black on white in dark mode). This is the usual logic for rendering
selected text anyway (except that we don't use non-grayscale colors, e.g. blue
background is common in system themes).
This was massively breaking GtkScale rendering. Or at least the marks (and mark
texts) added by gtk_scale_add_mark() were simply invisible.
I tried to figure why, staring at the GTK inspector and testing various CSS
rules to fix it without removing this line, but just couldn't make sense of it.
In the end, I'll just remove this line. It looks like in CSS (or just GTK CSS?),
it might be better to set rules on accurate widgets rather than too broad rules. 🤷
This linear gradient really doesn't render any feeling of "background"
IMO. I only initially implemented it this way because the underlying
theme seemed to use such gradient effect on headerbar for background
dialogs, so I wanted to test this.
Anyway simply using the "disabled" color seem to work well. After all,
the semantic is similar too (if it's in the background, a dialog can be
considered inactive in some way). In any case, the meaning definitely
comes across now.
Don't use it only on menus. For instance, there were disabled checkboxes
(and their label) in plug-ins which were not showing different at all,
and it's confusing. Now both menu items, and other type of settings will
show similar "disabled" style.
… variant.
Now with my recent code, instead of creating 2 different themes, I make
it a single theme containing both a Light and Dark variant.
I move all semantic logic into common.css which will be included by both
variants after they set up their color definitions.
For choosing the basic gray to use for the dark variant, I first looked
up what is usually recommended. Most articles on the web about dark
themes would cite some "Material design" project (apparently originated
from Google) which makes guidelines for Android/iOS/Flutter and web
applications. Their guidelines recommend #121212 ("Dark Grey") as
background color. I tried, it's **really** dark. Maybe I'm just not used
to it, but it feels like it might be OK for small phone "apps" which
people might want to watch in the dark, but possibly not for a full
grown desktop software. I don't really know, I might be wrong and some
people might want to edit their pictures with such dark GUI.
Anyway for now, I settled for a base background #303030, which is
already quite dark, darker than Adwaita dark or than our 2.10 dark
variant, but at least doesn't feel like a black hole.
