bago wrote:I think that is not a good idea to combine look configurations with other configurations because they should'n share too much.
Have you examples where the "look" is directly related / depends on specific "non look" configurations?
In my opinion
functionality clearly comes first, but the
usability of a functionality depends also on its
presentation (look). So presentation and functionality are interrelated, there is no sharp line between them.
To a large degree TC can be considered just as another graphical shell for the Windows operating systems and hopefully soon also for Linux. It' s easy to imagine that when you start Windows that only TC would be visible. Only some replacement for the taskbar had to be added. The desktop is not necessary. Now where ends the presentation of the bare OS functionality and where starts the added functionality of TC?
I think it is not really interesting to sort it out.
Are modern GUI applications just nicer to look than ancient character-based console applications?
I think it's more than that. The graphical presentation (combined with the introduction of a mouse) enhanced the usability enormously.
Finally I'll give you a more concrete example related to TC. The main problem of TC's current default configuration is not only the look of the visible parts, but also what is visible at all. For instance the modest look of the existing buttons is less serious than the inexistence of a well-balanced collection of commonly useful buttons. Only in the second place it can be mentioned that these buttons should have standard icons or icons derived from standard icons whenever possible.
to combine look configurations with other configurations because they should'n share too much.
