<snip>
> I can very much live with the default of Tree View and not showing hidden
> files. I find Icon View disorienting. All of the icons look the same to
> me. Pictures might be worth a thousand words, but in a file manager I'd
> rather have a thousand words. Maybe that is only because of the way I
> started using computers so long ago.

I do understand your reasoning, however I'm not comfortable making that
large of a change at this point.  If you want to enable it as the default
for Slackware that's fine with me--the file you will want to modify is
profile_filemanagement.desktop; change "View2_ServiceName=konq_iconview"
to "View2_ServiceName=konq_listview"

>
> I don't think changing the default icon set will change any user's
> expectations of how the desktop should work. Most computer users today
> understand the desktop icon metaphor. But the icon style/theme can easily
> change the user's impression. As the old adage goes, only one chance to
> make a first impression. I don't think the old classic icon set makes a
> good impression.

Neither do I.  Right now Crystal should be used (at least it shows up that
way on my test system)--does a new user still use the old Classic theme on
your system?

<snip>
>
> I think the shadows with icon text is hard to see for many people. I know
> the older I get the more I dislike such bling. I wear reading glasses or
> the text in a book is blurry to me. Not so 10 years ago. :) When I see
> gimmicks like shadowed text on the computer desktop I struggle to read the
> content. I suspect many people with poor vision do too. My greatest pet
> peeve with Web 2.0 is that web devs all use humongous TVs for monitors and
> they design the text for that size picture, which means the text is too
> small to read on most desktop monitors. I treat gimmicks like shadowed
> text the same way. Developers impress me the most when I remain
> productive, not when they try to show off their programming skills. :)

OK, I'm convinced.  White text with no shadows it is.

Tim