I think this module is one of the best, if not the best of all.
I think it should be great if someone could implement two features that will make it even better:
True transparency (I know this alread exists in the module, but I'm talking about the way shortcut2 does it)
Some kind of rollover thing to change the images, texts, etc... (again the way shortcut2 does.
This way, who will gonna need a shortcut module, when you have a module that does all that shortcut2 does, plus a lot more?
you already can do all this rollover things with clever use of the !Execute bang and/or a scripting module.
Using the !execute bang, can I make it change the image or I'll have to create another label with the same configuration just with diferent labelimage?
for changing the image you to have a different label as you said. important is to show the second label first and then hide the first label, so the transition will look better.
Thanks a lot for the help moshi.
I will try it
I'll will miss a better transparency support, if label has the same transparency capacities shortcut2 have it will be a lot easier to make a theme resolution independent.
Thanks again
how bout making it compatable with a wharf
How about using Label for what it is designed for and not trying to replace other stuff with it that fill the needs of what you want?
i second Out of blo0m's request. would be great to wharf label
I have no intention to replace anything. I just think that improving modules makes thing better for all users. I use label for what it is designed for. Anyway I think that this modules evolves beyond what it is designed for. Just look what it was in it's first release and what it's actually is.
Shortcut2 can be developed to do a lot more than it does now. If not, I think that it should be replace by other module that has more/better features. I think that's what's happened with a lot of modules in the past and I think it'll gonna happen again in the future.
The fact is that this isn't a bad thing for the shell, that is the way things change and evolve in the world.
Look I'm not intended to raise a flame war of this. That's just what I think. I'm not even unhappy with the modules that exists right now, don't get me wrong, please.
True alpha transparency support would be really great...
i want money, thats what i want... thats what i want
use Shortcut3 if you´re not happy with Shortcut2. documentation is in changes.txt
True per-pixal alpha transparency can't be implimented in any of the core modules due to the fact that they would no longer fuction correctly in a windows 98/ME enviroment.
Layercut.dll does a really good job of doing that for 2K/XP systems running litestep, but so far that's the only module that I know of that makes use of per-pixle transparency.. No more magic pink thank god!
I definatly hope module authors consider this feature in future releases.
skinbox will use true per-pixel alpha transparency, and will run on win 98/me. It just won't use true transparency on 98/me, it degrades to simulated transparency. (or it should if it doesn't)
I'm fond of skinbox... A date for the next release ? :)
I feel a !Labelbitmap path bang would be ultra sexy, and make for great theme constructs.
Of course, it would be easier than the older way (!LabelDestroy ; !SetVar LabelImage path ; !LabelCreate)
But I guess we've had to wait untl the 2.xx release...
hehe, I actually looked at the source yesterday :)
I can't promise much because there's so much stuff I should be doing (most of which I am not...), but I'll nudge it up my list a bit.
I just wanted to point out that it's possible to have a module support true alpha transparency and still run on 98/me. (even 95, but then you can't even do fake alpha)
And the "old" way as Smuth puts it would take some time on older CPU's yes ?
while were writing our shopping list for label.dll , how bout an extremely simple feature to implement ( well at least i think it would be) , being able to asign a solid background colour instead of an image !?
that would totally just make things soo much easier :)
oh and border colours too ! ..
but yeah only if its liek a 1line to implement and someoen can be bothered :)