From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05BAF1FF0B7 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 12:03:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C819B21471; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 12:03:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <2ed72513-1941-418a-8c56-5c655c9c2b8e@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 12:03:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH yew-widget-toolkit-assets 0/3] material: 8px spacing, touch-sized controls To: Thomas Lamprecht , yew-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261022174334.2286071-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> <29260457-34c4-408b-9898-1483d5500763@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dietmar Maurer In-Reply-To: <29260457-34c4-408b-9898-1483d5500763@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793358203148 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.974 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 443J4RXWSYHLQRZTOZFAGDAIJJIYUEMD X-Message-ID-Hash: 443J4RXWSYHLQRZTOZFAGDAIJJIYUEMD X-MailFrom: dietmar@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Yew framework devel list at Proxmox List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 10/29/26 3:40 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 29.10.26 um 13:29 schrieb Dietmar Maurer: >> I am not sure about this. Cant we simply use another density setting >> if we detect touch devices? >> desktop: preset -> medium >> touch: preset -> relaxed > IMO not ideal, that blows up all elements and adds a lot of empty space > reducing the rendered content even further. Just increasing the elements > one can actually interact with, and needs a bit bigger for being able to > nicely hit them with a finger provides a targeted benefit, increasing > padding for all is making the overall user experience slightly worse in > my opinion. But that is the whole point of the material design theme - you simple blow up all elements - that way you get pleasant layout, and it work on touch devices. Your goal seems to be something else - minimize wasted space, while still be able to use it on touch devices? I think that is a reasonable goal, but it is hard to get there with a good layout, because you destroy the uniform spacing property.