New suggestion (I think nobody suggested this before, but I can be wrong)

New suggestion (I think nobody suggested this before, but I can be wrong)

First: is it possible to the items to know when the screen is scrolling and when not?

If the answer is yes: what about a setting to ‘only show item when scrolling’? This way we could create marks to show in which screen we are, rectangles around the screens, etc, that are shown only when scrolling. (I know that in almost all cases the item will be a ‘do nothing’ shortcut)

]]>

8 Commentsto New suggestion (I think nobody suggested this before, but I can be wrong)

  1. Anonymous says:

    < ![CDATA[

    I don’t quite understand the use for this…

    ]]>

  2. Anonymous says:

    < ![CDATA[

    The easiest use to understand:


    An item without icon, just colour margins (aka a rectangle) in the background so the rectangle will stay around the items. When you scroll you can see it, when not you can’t. Just like the stock launcher.


    Another use will be to place an icon with a number at the top of every screen (not desktop) again the same as old stock launchers.



    Maybe this is not very powerful at the beginning, but if it’s easy to implement…I’m sure people will find a perfect use for this

    ]]>

  3. Anonymous says:

    < ![CDATA[

    I think I can envision a work around that could simulate this currently. That is, if I’m understanding correctly.


    If a solid background is used, a duplicate object of background color could be used that would “cover” the item when screen is reached. Not exactly what you are thinking of, I know…

    ]]>

  4. Anonymous says:

    < ![CDATA[

    More generally, a hide/unhide action would be great. Then scroll start/start events would need to be added and this is easy to do.



    But in practice I would like to put this in the scripting area. Yes I tend to think at scripting a lot these days…

    ]]>

  5. Anonymous says:

    < ![CDATA[

    Pierre Hébert Understandable and reasonable. With scripting many feature requests could be done by ourselves. LL stays small, the UI won’t get cluttered with features and settings only a minority would ever use. I’m fine with that.

    ]]>

  6. Anonymous says:

    < ![CDATA[

    The key will be to add enough documentation and basic examples so that using scripts does not remain a mystery 😉

    ]]>

  7. Anonymous says:

    < ![CDATA[

    Pierre Hébert Scripting is always difficult for users without experience. And very easy for user with it. Sometimes, documentation is not the best option, in almost all cases the best is a friendly UI (press a button, press a button, press this button, Ok) but of course this is almost impossible and heavy. What you can do, for example, is to let add the script as a (long) string(as well as a simple editor), and in your webpage let the user create their own scripts with visuals examples, buttons, whatever and share them as strings…too soon to think in this, maybe

    ]]>

  8. Anonymous says:

    < ![CDATA[

    TrianguloY Or something like the element/sniplet chooser at bottom like in Zooper Widgets’ advance options. I’m sure, Pierre won’t let us down on this.

    ]]>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *