No subject

Wed Apr 28 21:25:55 PDT 2010

islikes parts of the 1.x UI about as much as they now dislike parts the 2.x=
 one. =A0Both UIs have well-publicized strikes against them now; I think an=
 attempt to make changes *away* from that 1.x status quo has been well-just=
ified for a long time (even if that might not seem as true for all the chan=
ges *to* where 2.0.0 ended up at). =A0Thus I'd agree with Yoz's req=
uest to look for ideas that are improvements on both 1.x and 2.x, instead o=
f just going back to 1.x blindly.<br>

<br><div>Celi<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:3=
9 PM, Gigs <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gigstaggart at">g=
igstaggart at</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=

<div class=3D"im">On 09/20/2010 09:30 PM, Yoz Grahame wrote:<br>
&gt; If you&#39;re asking about reverting the entire viewer UI to 1.x: in s=
&gt; no. In less short, we&#39;d need an objective, well-reasoned argument<=
&gt; against each and every one of the several hundred UI changes between 1=
&gt; and 2.x. See above.<br>
</div>Why would the burden be that way? =A0 Linden Lab changed the status q=
they should be the ones justifying their new design, not the other way<br>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5">_________________________________________=
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:<br>
<a href=3D"" target=3D"_blank=
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privile=


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list