"Community Skin" testers needed.

[MixMan]

Nothing wrong with that. Both methods can co-exsist.

Right now, this skin is the only CommonImages based skin until Adivsor is changed.

Who is to say the next CommonImages based skin doesn't follow this skin's baseskin.xml file as an example?

Its all about options and providing the easiest and most flexible system (if it is even possible). That is what testing these ideas are all about. It may in fact be that leaving as much textstyles control in the plugin skin is the best solution.

Maybe having to edit one line in the baseskin.xml file to change what every list selection color and font looks like would be better.

What about other ideas? I am testing out later tonight a new idea just to see how it works.

What are the pitfalls and benefits of each method?

I am not ready to throw out or support any method until we know what those answers are.

I wouldn't worry too much about the textstyles at this time, it all could change tommorrow.....That is why it is a community skin. It is never "my way", I want an agreement on anything done.

I don't want it to sound like I am against anybody's ideas. I am not. I have agreed or reached a compromise on just about every idea that had been suggested so far (I can't remember not, but I may have). I just want to explore all options and not draw a line in the sand at this time over anything.

Does that sound reasonable?

No, it does not sound reasonable.
This discussion shouldn't exist.
ScreenName and ButtonText are the only commly used text definitions today.

The plugin skin files based on CommonImages should work with any skin, regardless of text defintions in the skins baseskin.xml, since there is no "standard" for text definitions amongst the skinners.
Otherwise the plugin skin files will only work with the Fatman_do version of baseskin.xml
This will not benefit end users, skinners or plugin developers, just create more frustration and work for everyone. Sub will be the "ruler" here...I guess. But Sub should have come up with an image based skin a year ago.....at least.
Thats my opinion.

[Fatman_do]

No, it does not sound reasonable.
This discussion shouldn't exist.
ScreenName and ButtonText are the only commly used text definitions today.

The plugin skin files based on CommonImages should work with any skin, regardless of text defintions in the skins baseskin.xml, since there is no "standard" for text definitions amongst the skinners.
Otherwise the plugin skin files will only work with the Fatman_do version of baseskin.xml

There was no "standard" for image names before this effort either. Why cannot text definitions be part of the standard? An exsisting skin that wants to be converted to this standard has to go through and change paths and image name in every plugin. It is not too much to just add a hand full of textstyles in the baseskin.xml file. None of these xml's work with any other skin now, regardless of this "Fatman_do baseskin.xml" you are concerned about. Common textstyles can be part of this, there is no reason to exclude it. This is about the future and not the past.

This will not benefit end users, skinners or plugin developers, just create more frustration and work for everyone. Sub will be the "ruler" here...I guess. But Sub should have come up with an image based skin a year ago.....at least.
Thats my opinion.

Explain please why centralizing common textsyles in a baseskin.xml file will not benefit end users, skinners or plugin developers. Explain why it would create frustration and work for everyone. Just merely saying it is so doesn't mean it is.

The exact opposite is true. Centralizing common textstyles in a baseskin.xml will benefit end users who would ask "How do I change the font and color on selected text in a list because I want to use black text on white images?"

Answer "Edit these few lines in the baseskin.xml file"

Old method you say is better "Edit this line this plugin xml file, edit this different name and line in this xml file, this xml file uses this name, change it here, and so on, and so on, and so on."

This common source benefits skinners and plugin developers also. Just one file to edit for a skinner. A plugin developer, Psycik, wanted to easily change the size of all his fonts when he redid MCE2 for his 14" TV. He has stated before it would have been easier to edit it one place instead of every single plugin. I didn't move every text style, just the ones that are somewhat common between plugins. I felt his concern was a valid one and "met him half way" on it. I think every textstyle in the core of gbpvr can be "commonized" and placed in the baseskin.xml. There is no reason plugin skins shouldn't be able to maximize those benfits.

I would like to hear from others on what their opinion is. Even if you don't know anything about skinning, I feel these names are explanitory and easy to identify.
These are what I have as "common" text styles:

Code:

    <!-- Button and Title text styles -->
        <TextStyle name="ScreenName" color="#2562b0" typeFace="Arial" size="32" style="bold" /><!--Max size=32 -->
        <TextStyle name="ButtonText" color="LightGray" typeFace="Tahoma" size="14" style="bold" />
        <TextStyle name="ButtonTextSelected" color="Yellow" typeFace="Tahoma" size="14" style="bold" />

    <!-- Button and Title text styles -->
        <TextStyle name="GeneralText" color="LightGray" typeFace="Arial" size="13" style="bold"/>         
        <TextStyle name="SelectedGeneralText" color="LightGray" typeFace="Arial" size="13" style="bold"/> <!-- Added Name is hardcoded by some pugins -->
        
    <!-- Icon View text styles-->
        <TextStyle name="IconText" color="LightGray" typeFace="Arial" size="12" style="bold"/>
        <TextStyle name="IconTextSelected" color="Yellow" typeFace="Arial" size="12" style="bold"/>

    <!-- List View text styles -->
        <TextStyle name="ListText" color="LightGray" typeFace="Arial" size="13" style="bold"  />
        <TextStyle name="ListTextSelected" color="Yellow" typeFace="Arial" size="13" style="bold"/>

    <!-- Popup Dialog text styles -->
        <TextStyle name="PopupTags" color="Yellow" typeFace="Arial" size="14" style="bold"  />
        <TextStyle name="PopupText" color="White" typeFace="Arial" size="14" style="bold"  />
        
    <!-- Remote Control Hint Text-->    
        <TextStyle name="HintText" color="White" typeFace="Arial" size="13" style="bold"/>

[MixMan]

Yes, I would like to hear other skinners opinions upon common text definitions. If they don't commit, there is no agreement.

It looks OK to include them in my skins, but shouldn't GeneralText be Default ?
Where is SelectedGeneralText used?

[McBainUK]

In my opinion, having common textsyles defined in BaseSkin.xml is a natural progression from the CommonImages idea.

Benifits:

• A user can change text size, font and colour very easily.
  
• Avoids the problem (for example) of having a white button with white text. Can just change one xml file and then all plugins and core screens are updated.

I would like to see more textstyles defined in baseskin.xml. 1st to come to minde are textstyles for use with text that is drawn directly on to backgrounds (popup, textbox and main background jpg's).

http://gbpvr.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Devel...TextStyles

[MixMan]

In my opinion, having common textsyles defined in BaseSkin.xml is a natural progression from the CommonImages idea.

Benifits:

• A user can change text size, font and colour very easily.
  
• Avoids the problem (for example) of having a white button with white text. Can just change one xml file and then all plugins and core screens are updated.

I would like to see more textstyles defined in baseskin.xml. 1st to come to minde are textstyles for use with text that is drawn directly on to backgrounds (popup, textbox and main background jpg's).

http://gbpvr.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Devel...TextStyles

Don't get me wrong, I am aware of all the benefits My baseskin XMLs are full of text definitions, but I haven't used the possibilities that often because other XML values needs to be changed for it to look good or white gives the best contrast most of the times.

But I agree that it is a natural progress, but other skinners needs to be in on this to.

[Fatman_do]

I cannot remember off the top of my head, but some plugins use "GeneralText" and "SelectedGeneralText" for what I call "ListText" and "ListTextSelected".

It seems like "Search" did this. Let me look into it and see if I can find others. (They were hard-coded to use those textnames since text was not part of a composite image you could change the name of).

[Jeff]

I cannot remember off the top of my head, but some plugins use "GeneralText" and "SelectedGeneralText" for what I call "ListText" and "ListTextSelected".

It seems like "Search" did this. Let me look into it and see if I can find others. (They were hard-coded to use those textnames since text was not part of a composite image you could change the name of).

In this case, what I would rather see happen is that the search plug-in change to use ListTest and LstTextSelected. Since the skin has to change to use the new image names anyway changing the text names at the same time is a trival thing. I like the idea of standard textstyles being defined and used in a consistent way. I think we need a few more however. I have been reskinning the video archive plug-in to use the community skin graphics and textstyles and while I can do it without using any of my own text styles and have it look okay, I would be happier if I had a few text styles. For example, I display time on the screen. I used to used the standard ScreenName text style, but this is huge in the default community skin and looks bad for time. I switched to hint text but that is small. Other screens may pick button text and ths time will not look the same across plug-ins that support it. Maybe we should have a TimeText style or a LargeTimeTextSyle, SmallTimeTextStyle, and NormalTimeTextStyle to give plug-ins some ability to pick a defualt that is likely to work with many baseskin skins.

Jeff

[Fatman_do]

Excellent suggestions. This is all about dialog with skinners and developers.

To take it one step further. We have an area that is the "Title_Bar.png" area.

Texts in those areas might need to be singled out as one style instead of several different styles. Because of the unkown types of images that could be used, should we try to use DrawTextWithOutline? In v98+, the colors can be controlled by baseskin.xml.

Do we expect the same size text in that area among most plugins? If so, only one textstyle is needed for that "zone".

We could use larger and smaller ones if the need is there.

[McBainUK]

I like the idea of standard textstyles being defined and used in a consistent way.

Agree.

----------------------
Instead of SmallTimeTextStyle, why not make the text style names abstract (like the CommonImage names). Name the styles accoring to where they are used not what the are used for.

Eg: the UK Cinema plugins has a text style called CinemaInfoText which is for the the cinema name, tel no etc. This is drawn directly on to the background.
A better name for the text style would be BackgroundText, or LabelText (name TBD).

[Jeff]

I could go for BackgroundText. I still think it would be useful to have BackgroundTextSmall and BackgroundTextLarge as well. If the idea is that plug-in developers create a single version of their skin which can then be quickly customized only by chaning the baseskin file that may mostly work, but in cases where the plug-in developer has placed serveral things in the same area they may need the font size to be small, for example, so being able to use BackgroundTextSmall would be helpful.

Jeff