Fonts and Glyphs

Hi,

It's just my opinion but one of the downsides of using ReSharper is
that the drop-downs and tooltips are less aesthetically pleasing as
those in VS.NET - they don't fit in well with the general IDE.

Everything else in the IDE uses a fixed set of symbols to represent
members etc. The whole GUI uses one font - which isn't the text
editing font.

ReSharper feels very harsh to me considering that I'm used to the
modern-looks of VS.NET.

I would recommend at least making the glyphs and font used optional so
that I can make ReSharper look like it fits in. The first comment of
one of my colleagues was: "ooh, that's ugly". I don't mean to be
disrespectful, I'm just passing on feedback.

What do you think?

Apart from that, keep up the good work!

Simon.

16 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Simon,

Lets discuss fonts and icons separately:

1) We use our custom icons because they seem to be more informable and
better represent their meaning. Additionaly we have extra features there:
e.g. property icon is different for read, write and read/write properties
2) Regarding fonts: we use Arial in ordinary lists and the current
editor font in lookups. The latter's goal is to match the typed text size in
lookups. It looks ok for standard fonts.

If something seems ugly to you, could you please post screenshots which
demonstrate how it looks on your system?

Thank you
--
Oleg Stepanov
Software Developer
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Simon Steele" <ssnews@softel.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a0k630p6dcrl1rfjknno7tlsbdbtothu93@4ax.com...

Hi,

>

It's just my opinion but one of the downsides of using ReSharper is
that the drop-downs and tooltips are less aesthetically pleasing as
those in VS.NET - they don't fit in well with the general IDE.

>

Everything else in the IDE uses a fixed set of symbols to represent
members etc. The whole GUI uses one font - which isn't the text
editing font.

>

ReSharper feels very harsh to me considering that I'm used to the
modern-looks of VS.NET.

>

I would recommend at least making the glyphs and font used optional so
that I can make ReSharper look like it fits in. The first comment of
one of my colleagues was: "ooh, that's ugly". I don't mean to be
disrespectful, I'm just passing on feedback.

>

What do you think?

>

Apart from that, keep up the good work!

>

Simon.



0
Comment actions Permalink

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:16:49 +0300, "Oleg Stepanov \(JetBrains\)"
<Oleg.Stepanov@JetBrains.Com> wrote:

Oleg,

Lets discuss fonts and icons separately:

>

1) We use our custom icons because they seem to be more informable and

>better represent their meaning. Additionaly we have extra features there:
>e.g. property icon is different for read, write and read/write properties

Absolutely, I understand why you are using different icons. My problem
is that it doesn't provide a consistent look and feel across the
working environment. What would be more useful (IMHO) would be to take
the standard icons used in VS.NET and adapt them to add more
functionlity instead of completely replacing them. This would allow me
to switch between your GUI parts and Microsoft's without having to
think too hard about what each one means.

2) Regarding fonts: we use Arial in ordinary lists and the current

>editor font in lookups. The latter's goal is to match the typed text size in
>lookups. It looks ok for standard fonts.

Ok, so on Windows 2000+ the standard GUI font is either MS Sans Serif
or (if you're a yound and trendy application) Tahoma. VS.NET uses one
of these (can't quite decide which right now). The standard popups in
VS.NET use this font too - which makes them fit in well with the
environment.

I would have thought that people are going to be most comfortable with
ReSharper if it fits with VS.NET like a glove - seamlessly. The use of
Courier New in the drop-downs just doesn't feel right to me - even
though I write code using that same font!

I know that these are cosmetic issues - but the look and feel of
something like this is really important (again, IMHO).

Thanks for discussing this!

Simon.

0
Comment actions Permalink

I seconds Simon's sentiments. I've used IDEA before so the ReSharper
font/icons were familiar to me and not as offensive. Still, the first time I
saw the intellisense dropdown, I cringed. Also, the find usages float window
does not appear to fit VS.NET exactly (not just the fonts inside, but even
the tab when anchored looks a little off).

This is one of those issues that while not having any functionality or
performance impact just doesn't convey a good feeling of quality. Again, I
am coming from the IDEA background, so my pre-existing affinity for
JetBrains pretty much offsets this, but it may feel different to someone
trying ReSharper for the first time.

I also agree with Simon that you guys should try to make ReSharper fit
VS.NET as seamlessly as possible and if that means moving away from some
color/font/icon schemes established in IDEA, thats OK.

-Michael


0
Comment actions Permalink

Michael Teper wrote:

I also agree with Simon that you guys should try to make ReSharper fit
VS.NET as seamlessly as possible and if that means moving away from some
color/font/icon schemes established in IDEA, thats OK.


I cannot agree.
IDEAs design is flawless (allmost, IMHO) why should JBs swich it to
somethig so crapy as M$ VS ?

(yes, crapy and uncomfortable,at least for me,
OK. this floating window rather doesnt fit into anything, but I
understand that R# is still in early-alpha stage....)

regards
drpsycho

0
Comment actions Permalink

Two reasons, really:

1. It is a VS.NET plugin. When in Rome, ...

2. IDEA's design is Java-based, proprietory and does not fit well the
windows standard look and feel. There are plenty of good reasons for this,
and I am not attacking the design of IDEA. The fact, however, remains, and
while you may feel that windows look & feel or VS.NET look & feel is
inferior to IDEA UI, its not the IDEA UI that is being discussed here.
ReSharper needs to play nice inside VS.NET both in terms of functionality
and in terms of continuity of user interface. After all, this product is not
just for the IDEA converts.

-Michael

"psycholusus(at)y" <"psycholusus(at)y"@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:c10fep$c71$1@is.intellij.net...

I cannot agree.
IDEAs design is flawless (allmost, IMHO) why should JBs swich it to
somethig so crapy as M$ VS ?



0
Comment actions Permalink

Michael Teper wrote:

Two reasons, really:

1. It is a VS.NET plugin. When in Rome, ...

2. IDEA's design is Java-based, proprietory and does not fit well the
windows standard look and feel.

Geee... I do not understand. Why ?
Because is DIFFERENT ?
There is nowhere written, that everything on MS platform should look
exacly same. MS guys doesnt have patent on wisdom (at least yet) and
there could be better solutions than MS ones.

There are plenty of good reasons for this,
and I am not attacking the design of IDEA. The fact, however, remains, and
while you may feel that windows look & feel or VS.NET look & feel is
inferior to IDEA UI, its not the IDEA UI that is being discussed here.
ReSharper needs to play nice inside VS.NET both in terms of functionality
and in terms of continuity of user interface.


Yes but everybody knows that Re# as a VS plugin is only a temporary
state. So JBs shoud familiarize their customers with the future design ,
so they can be easly recognited later. IMHO they will reuse a large part
of IDEA UI - why develop the same thing twice ?

regards

0
Comment actions Permalink

First of all, clearly you are just so enamored with IDEA, you won't even
read what I wrote. So I'll say it again, I AM NOT KNOCKING IDEA, its
operation or its interface.

With regards to ReSharper, I for one, am not sure what the future direction
of ReSharper is. The IntelliJ folks indicated that they may consider taking
the plugin and making it a standalone product in the future. This, contrary
to your assertion, is not yet written in stone (at least not that I've seen
publically announced). Personally, I think that would be the wrong direction
to go. VS.NET, while lacking in those areas where IDEA excels (namely coder
productivity) has its own strong points like web and database development
and integration across various products and servers. So, from my point of
view, it makes more sense for IntelliJ to concentrate their resources on
their core competencies and work with VS.NET instead of trying to compete
with it (something they just dont have the resources for, IMO). But, of
couse, this is pure speculation looking from outside in. I am sure IntelliJ
have their own plans and, in time, they will be revealed.

-Michael

"psycholusus(at)y" <"psycholusus(at)y"@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:c1122v$kqe$1@is.intellij.net...

Michael Teper wrote:

Two reasons, really:

>

1. It is a VS.NET plugin. When in Rome, ...

>

2. IDEA's design is Java-based, proprietory and does not fit well the
windows standard look and feel.

Geee... I do not understand. Why ?
Because is DIFFERENT ?
There is nowhere written, that everything on MS platform should look
exacly same. MS guys doesnt have patent on wisdom (at least yet) and
there could be better solutions than MS ones.

>

There are plenty of good reasons for this,
and I am not attacking the design of IDEA. The fact, however, remains,

and

while you may feel that windows look & feel or VS.NET look & feel is
inferior to IDEA UI, its not the IDEA UI that is being discussed here.
ReSharper needs to play nice inside VS.NET both in terms of

functionality

and in terms of continuity of user interface.

>

Yes but everybody knows that Re# as a VS plugin is only a temporary
state. So JBs shoud familiarize their customers with the future design ,
so they can be easly recognited later. IMHO they will reuse a large part
of IDEA UI - why develop the same thing twice ?

>

regards



0
Comment actions Permalink

Geee... I do not understand. Why ?
Because is DIFFERENT ?
There is nowhere written, that everything on MS platform should look
exacly same. MS guys doesnt have patent on wisdom (at least yet) and
there could be better solutions than MS ones.

...

Yes but everybody knows that Re# as a VS plugin is only a temporary
state. So JBs shoud familiarize their customers with the future design ,
so they can be easly recognited later. IMHO they will reuse a large part
of IDEA UI - why develop the same thing twice ?



Consistent UI is about visual comfort and helps not be distracted from your
work.

If there were enough resources in JetBrains, they could make UI style
configurable, with two basic styles - one for IDEA-like UI, and another for
VS.NET-consistent.

If there was public voting among the two, I'd vote for the latter.

If it was possible to configure whole VS.NET to be consistent with Re#.... I
would try it.


Regards,
Ales



0
Comment actions Permalink

First of all, clearly you are just so enamored with IDEA, you won't even
read what I wrote. So I'll say it again, I AM NOT KNOCKING IDEA, its
operation or its interface.

With regards to ReSharper, I for one, am not sure what the future direction
of ReSharper is. The IntelliJ folks indicated that they may consider taking
the plugin and making it a standalone product in the future. This, contrary
to your assertion, is not yet written in stone (at least not that I've seen
publically announced). Personally, I think that would be the wrong direction
to go. VS.NET, while lacking in those areas where IDEA excels (namely coder
productivity) has its own strong points like web and database development
and integration across various products and servers. So, from my point of
view, it makes more sense for IntelliJ to concentrate their resources on
their core competencies and work with VS.NET instead of trying to compete
with it (something they just dont have the resources for, IMO). But, of
couse, this is pure speculation looking from outside in. I am sure IntelliJ
have their own plans and, in time, they will be revealed.


I would like to see re#er to go stand alone. While vs.net may be well integrated with
accross various products, for my needs it's a bloatware.
Take a look at Idea itself, and compare it, lets say with IBM's VA,
which is oh so well integrated with their other products. I've met many people
which doesn't miss any of that integration, and are happy to do an extra step,
just to be able to work with Idea.
The fact is, there's no good alternative for .net development. Borland tried,
but they are just trying to copy msft and vs.net, and even there they fail badly.
I've tried few other products (I think primal screen or something like that, and visual slick)
but what I am looking for is something similar to Idea.
That said, I also don't see people buy idea's plugin once msft comes with new version of VS.
They also have implemented/are implementing live templates, refactorings etc, so,
I don't see people buy re#er because of few additional things.
Beeing standalone, and completely different, available for a resopnable price,
stand alone re#er would be better bet imho.

-j

0
Comment actions Permalink

Having worked with both IDEA and VS.NET Whidbey, I can (optimistically) say
that R# has enough potential to merit investing in the plugin even in the
presense of Whidbey. Ultimately, the success of the plugin vs. standalone
product depends largely on the makeup of the windows-based developer
population and I think the dynamic here is very different from the Java
world.

I worked with VS (C++ & VB) before working with Java. When I switched to
Java, I evaluated a number of Java IDE's and they all sucked really badly
compared to what I was used to with VS. It wasn't until I discovered IDEA
that I could feel I could be truly productive in that environment. There
were integration features that I wished IDEA would have, but the coder
productivity that IDEA is known for FAR outweighed those concerns. Today, I
work full time with .NET and live in VS.NET. There are things I miss dearly
from IDEA (and thank god for R#), but there are also other things I find
indispesible (multi-language solutions, db integration, to name a couple).
With Whidbey coming along, if I had to choose between a R# IDE and VS.NET I
think I would reluctantly choose VS.NET because as a complete package it
offers very compelling value. On the other hand, if R# was offered as a
plugin in Whidbey, I'd pay for it in a heartbeat.

You also made the argument that R# may be cheaper than VS.NET and win on the
merits of price. I think you are not taking into account the popularity and
the value of an MSDN subscription. Given that you can purchase MSDN
Universal for well under $1000 and considering what you get for that money,
I would be surprised if the majority of windows-based shops dont already own
VS.NET by default.

Ideally, I suppose, IntelliJ could offer both a plugin and a standalone IDE.
Would that stretch their resources too far? I dont know...

-Michael


"m.milicevic" <RE_THISjjooee@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c121dv$1hq$1@is.intellij.net...
I would like to see re#er to go stand alone. While vs.net may be well
integrated with
accross various products, for my needs it's a bloatware.
Take a look at Idea itself, and compare it, lets say with IBM's VA,
which is oh so well integrated with their other products. I've met many
people
which doesn't miss any of that integration, and are happy to do an extra
step,
just to be able to work with Idea.
The fact is, there's no good alternative for .net development. Borland
tried,
but they are just trying to copy msft and vs.net, and even there they fail
badly.
I've tried few other products (I think primal screen or something like that,
and visual slick)
but what I am looking for is something similar to Idea.
That said, I also don't see people buy idea's plugin once msft comes with
new version of VS.
They also have implemented/are implementing live templates, refactorings
etc, so,
I don't see people buy re#er because of few additional things.
Beeing standalone, and completely different, available for a resopnable
price,
stand alone re#er would be better bet imho.

-j



0
Comment actions Permalink

Michael,

I has been hesitating for some time, but finaly decided to put in my two
cents. Of course, the following is unofficial and all. Actually there're at
least two issues:

1) Many things implemented in VS.NET can be done much much better. This
includes ASP.NET support, database integration, etc.
I did much enterprise development under .NET and I know what I say.
2) VS.NET limits our abilities because of lacking good extensibility
API. We have to use workarounds even for very simple tasks.

The problem is, of course, resources so ReSharper will be a plugin for
VS.NET. Nevertheless, we're very interested what kinds of projects are now
being developed on .NET to plan our roadmap. If you could, please describe
what you think VS.NET is lacking and what you would like to see in ReSharper
first and future releases? Before answering, please read the list of planned
M2 features on our site.

Thank you,
--
Oleg Stepanov
Software Developer
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Michael Teper" <michael.dot.teper@convade.dot.com> wrote in message
news:c12pnm$kse$1@is.intellij.net...

Having worked with both IDEA and VS.NET Whidbey, I can (optimistically)

say

that R# has enough potential to merit investing in the plugin even in the
presense of Whidbey. Ultimately, the success of the plugin vs. standalone
product depends largely on the makeup of the windows-based developer
population and I think the dynamic here is very different from the Java
world.

>

I worked with VS (C++ & VB) before working with Java. When I switched to
Java, I evaluated a number of Java IDE's and they all sucked really badly
compared to what I was used to with VS. It wasn't until I discovered IDEA
that I could feel I could be truly productive in that environment. There
were integration features that I wished IDEA would have, but the coder
productivity that IDEA is known for FAR outweighed those concerns. Today,

I

work full time with .NET and live in VS.NET. There are things I miss

dearly

from IDEA (and thank god for R#), but there are also other things I find
indispesible (multi-language solutions, db integration, to name a couple).
With Whidbey coming along, if I had to choose between a R# IDE and VS.NET

I

think I would reluctantly choose VS.NET because as a complete package it
offers very compelling value. On the other hand, if R# was offered as a
plugin in Whidbey, I'd pay for it in a heartbeat.

>

You also made the argument that R# may be cheaper than VS.NET and win on

the

merits of price. I think you are not taking into account the popularity

and

the value of an MSDN subscription. Given that you can purchase MSDN
Universal for well under $1000 and considering what you get for that

money,

I would be surprised if the majority of windows-based shops dont already

own

VS.NET by default.

>

Ideally, I suppose, IntelliJ could offer both a plugin and a standalone

IDE.

Would that stretch their resources too far? I dont know...

>

-Michael

>
>

"m.milicevic" <RE_THISjjooee@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c121dv$1hq$1@is.intellij.net...
I would like to see re#er to go stand alone. While vs.net may be well
integrated with
accross various products, for my needs it's a bloatware.
Take a look at Idea itself, and compare it, lets say with IBM's VA,
which is oh so well integrated with their other products. I've met many
people
which doesn't miss any of that integration, and are happy to do an extra
step,
just to be able to work with Idea.
The fact is, there's no good alternative for .net development. Borland
tried,
but they are just trying to copy msft and vs.net, and even there they fail
badly.
I've tried few other products (I think primal screen or something like

that,

and visual slick)
but what I am looking for is something similar to Idea.
That said, I also don't see people buy idea's plugin once msft comes with
new version of VS.
They also have implemented/are implementing live templates, refactorings
etc, so,
I don't see people buy re#er because of few additional things.
Beeing standalone, and completely different, available for a resopnable
price,
stand alone re#er would be better bet imho.

>

-j

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink

Ales,

We're thinking now on providing aÔ option to alllow users change their
UI scheme (fonts and icon sets). Expect it in future builds.

--
Oleg Stepanov
Software Developer
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Ales Pour" <pour@systinet.com> wrote in message
news:c1211s$u8q$1@is.intellij.net...

Geee... I do not understand. Why ?
Because is DIFFERENT ?
There is nowhere written, that everything on MS platform should look
exacly same. MS guys doesnt have patent on wisdom (at least yet) and
there could be better solutions than MS ones.

...

Yes but everybody knows that Re# as a VS plugin is only a temporary
state. So JBs shoud familiarize their customers with the future design ,
so they can be easly recognited later. IMHO they will reuse a large part
of IDEA UI - why develop the same thing twice ?

>
>

Consistent UI is about visual comfort and helps not be distracted from

your

work.

>

If there were enough resources in JetBrains, they could make UI style
configurable, with two basic styles - one for IDEA-like UI, and another

for

VS.NET-consistent.

>

If there was public voting among the two, I'd vote for the latter.

>

If it was possible to configure whole VS.NET to be consistent with Re#....

I

would try it.

>
>

Regards,
Ales

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:47:41 +0300, "Oleg Stepanov \(JetBrains\)"
<Oleg.Stepanov@JetBrains.Com> wrote:

We're thinking now on providing aÔ option to alllow users change their

>UI scheme (fonts and icon sets). Expect it in future builds.

Excellent, glad to hear it. Thanks!

Simon.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Oleg, I don't doubt your point #1 and there are things about VS.NET that
annoy me as well (see below). I am not at all surprised about #2. I think,
as you said, in the end its all about resources.

Off the top of my head, here are some things I dislike about VS.NET 2003:

1. No refactoring support, dumb intellisense.
I think that towards the end of the year, between ReSharper and Whidbey, I
should have this gripe mostly addressed.

2. Incomplete DB support.
Ideally for me, I want to have the full feature set of SQL Server Enterprise
Manager available to me from the IDE. Today, there are still things I cannot
do (like assign permissions to db objects, for example). Another (BIG) gripe
is that I had to invent a homegrown scheme for managing DB object versioning
and upgrade scripting. Ideally, the IDE would take care of that for me (or
at least help me with it).

You can see here that to me only SQL Server support is important and it is
critical that SQL Server is supported in full. No doubt other people will
have different requirements.

There are indications from the Yukon beta that db support in the IDE may get
better in the Yukon/Whidbey timeframe as well.

3. Inflexible project / solution structure.
VS.NET likes its projects and solutions set up a certain way in the file
system and provides no flexibility in the UI for changing the structure. I
often end up hacking the .csproj and .sln files to suit my needs. It looks
like this may become even more painful in Whidbey (at least it is in the PDC
bits).

4. Setup projects are pretty limited in their functionality. I would have
liked to see a more complete implementation.

Here are some things that I do like about VS.NET:

1. Its fast (unlike IDEA, for example)
2. Its integrated and contains all the pieces I work with (the whole is
greater than the sum of its parts)
3. Its at the forefront of MS initiatives (think of things like Whitehorse)

Its the last two points that are of the most value to me and are the reason
I am afraid I would find the choice between a theoretical Whidbey release
and a theoretical standalone ReSharper release potentially so difficult. :)

Before I get flamed by the MS-haters, I am responding to Oleg's request, and
these are points that are important to me in the development work that I do
today.

-Michael

"Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains)" <Oleg.Stepanov@JetBrains.Com> wrote in message
news:c14ohc$rng$1@is.intellij.net...

Michael,

>

I has been hesitating for some time, but finaly decided to put in my

two

cents. Of course, the following is unofficial and all. Actually there're

at

least two issues:

>

1) Many things implemented in VS.NET can be done much much better.

This

includes ASP.NET support, database integration, etc.
I did much enterprise development under .NET and I know what I

say.

2) VS.NET limits our abilities because of lacking good extensibility
API. We have to use workarounds even for very simple tasks.

>

The problem is, of course, resources so ReSharper will be a plugin for
VS.NET. Nevertheless, we're very interested what kinds of projects are now
being developed on .NET to plan our roadmap. If you could, please describe
what you think VS.NET is lacking and what you would like to see in

ReSharper

first and future releases? Before answering, please read the list of

planned

M2 features on our site.

>

Thank you,
--
Oleg Stepanov
Software Developer
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Michael Teper" <michael.dot.teper@convade.dot.com> wrote in message
news:c12pnm$kse$1@is.intellij.net...

Having worked with both IDEA and VS.NET Whidbey, I can (optimistically)

say

that R# has enough potential to merit investing in the plugin even in

the

presense of Whidbey. Ultimately, the success of the plugin vs.

standalone

product depends largely on the makeup of the windows-based developer
population and I think the dynamic here is very different from the Java
world.

>

I worked with VS (C++ & VB) before working with Java. When I switched to
Java, I evaluated a number of Java IDE's and they all sucked really

badly

compared to what I was used to with VS. It wasn't until I discovered

IDEA

that I could feel I could be truly productive in that environment. There
were integration features that I wished IDEA would have, but the coder
productivity that IDEA is known for FAR outweighed those concerns.

Today,

I

work full time with .NET and live in VS.NET. There are things I miss

dearly

from IDEA (and thank god for R#), but there are also other things I find
indispesible (multi-language solutions, db integration, to name a

couple).

With Whidbey coming along, if I had to choose between a R# IDE and

VS.NET

I

think I would reluctantly choose VS.NET because as a complete package it
offers very compelling value. On the other hand, if R# was offered as a
plugin in Whidbey, I'd pay for it in a heartbeat.

>

You also made the argument that R# may be cheaper than VS.NET and win on

the

merits of price. I think you are not taking into account the popularity

and

the value of an MSDN subscription. Given that you can purchase MSDN
Universal for well under $1000 and considering what you get for that

money,

I would be surprised if the majority of windows-based shops dont already

own

VS.NET by default.

>

Ideally, I suppose, IntelliJ could offer both a plugin and a standalone

IDE.

Would that stretch their resources too far? I dont know...

>

-Michael

>
>

"m.milicevic" <RE_THISjjooee@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c121dv$1hq$1@is.intellij.net...
I would like to see re#er to go stand alone. While vs.net may be well
integrated with
accross various products, for my needs it's a bloatware.
Take a look at Idea itself, and compare it, lets say with IBM's VA,
which is oh so well integrated with their other products. I've met many
people
which doesn't miss any of that integration, and are happy to do an extra
step,
just to be able to work with Idea.
The fact is, there's no good alternative for .net development. Borland
tried,
but they are just trying to copy msft and vs.net, and even there they

fail

badly.
I've tried few other products (I think primal screen or something like

that,

and visual slick)
but what I am looking for is something similar to Idea.
That said, I also don't see people buy idea's plugin once msft comes

with

new version of VS.
They also have implemented/are implementing live templates, refactorings
etc, so,
I don't see people buy re#er because of few additional things.
Beeing standalone, and completely different, available for a resopnable
price,
stand alone re#er would be better bet imho.

>

-j

>
>

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink


"Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains)" <Oleg.Stepanov@JetBrains.Com> wrote in message
news:c14okc$sjq$1@is.intellij.net...

Ales,

>

We're thinking now on providing aÔ option to alllow users change their
UI scheme (fonts and icon sets). Expect it in future builds.


Not that I will use R# or .NET in near future, but I cannot agree more: when
in Rome be like Romans. When I get across Windows app which does not conform
to standard controls, fonts and styles, I throw it away and look up for
"standard" one. This is the whole point of common controls, common dialogs,
etc. I want all my apps to look alike. Hell, I even do not use XP scheme
because it is soo sweet I can throw up.


0
Comment actions Permalink

Michael,

As I mentioned before, we're going to make icons and fonts configurable
so users may switch between ReSharper and VS.NET scheme.

--
Oleg Stepanov
Software Developer
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Michael Jouravlev" <mikus@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:c23cco$mc3$1@is.intellij.net...
>

"Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains)" <Oleg.Stepanov@JetBrains.Com> wrote in message
news:c14okc$sjq$1@is.intellij.net...

Ales,

>

We're thinking now on providing aÔ option to alllow users change

their

UI scheme (fonts and icon sets). Expect it in future builds.

>

Not that I will use R# or .NET in near future, but I cannot agree more:

when

in Rome be like Romans. When I get across Windows app which does not

conform

to standard controls, fonts and styles, I throw it away and look up for
"standard" one. This is the whole point of common controls, common

dialogs,

etc. I want all my apps to look alike. Hell, I even do not use XP scheme
because it is soo sweet I can throw up.

>
>


0

Please sign in to leave a comment.