On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 12:51:47PM +0200, Roman Joost wrote: > On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 11:16:48AM +0200, Axel Wernicke wrote: > > Hi Marco, > > > > the magic word here is transparency. These graphics have to be redone for 2.4 > > anyways, so I think this is a good chance to make the manual independant of the > > background color. It doesn't matter whether we talk about a red, gray or brown > > background - the graphics should not contain any background color. > > So, I'd suggest we stick to the dark background for now, because it is the only > > way to see where the problems are. Hiding them is not a solution. > I would agree with you in terms of the transparence background, but that > would raise some problems with the 'numbers' pointing to specific > regions. Those are currently black and white. Having a transparent > background means, that those numbers are not very well visible by the > people. > 1) > Having a well defined background color (like white) means, that we don't > have to care of layout changes :) and I add 2) manual figures are visible even with old browsers that do not support png transparency 3) printing is safe without using special stylesheets (with the risk of producing not well visible pages that were not so with dark background..) and without using much colour ink (expensive with inkjet and laserprinters). Please, stylesheet experts, revert the background! bye -- Marco Ciampa +--------------------+ | Linux User #78271 | | FSFE fellow #364 | +--------------------+ _______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
