Breeze is now more round!

This really is sad… :unamused: I am really sorry that such stupid things have happened to you!


Clickediclick…plenty of space :smirk:

Perhaps when all of this is ready and tested there could be an option for the corner radius in System Settings (e.g. in the Appearance & Style section) with three possible settings:

  • little (with nearly no rounded corners)
  • default (with slightly rounded corners)
  • much (with distinct rounded corners)

I think this would match well to the other possibilities to configure and individualize Plasma and this way satisfy both the people who prefer the more “industrial and serious” look and the people who prefer the more “GMOMEish tablet and mobile phone” look - and for the people who don’t care there would be the “default” compromise.
And nobody would have to install something like a “Global Theme” just because of the corners.


So… when can we expect it? :cowboy_hat_face:

I’ll do you one better: The value is randomized every time you reboot your PC.


lol this sounds fun :smile: . But please at least make Overview scale with it otherwise I wouldn’t handle the torture :sweat_smile:

1 Like

I could live with that. :+1:

Overview follows the global roundness value now :slight_smile: @ngraham fixed it


Or simply expose the round feature inside Plasma settings>Application Style, then leave everyone to swim alone.


A bit of a tangent from someone not familiar with Qt:

Comments here mention radius in pixels, but it seems the implementation uses rem. The latter is relative and it’s what - IMO - should be used for UIs considering the variability of UI components and pixel densities. So they’re not really convertible between each other, are they?

Pixels are used as the unit of measurement because they get automatically scaled as needed based on the user’s screen scale factors.

So happy to hear that there’ll be more roundedness in Breeze! Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, making it a bit more round will make it friendlier. Thank you!


When it comes to settings value:

Personal opinion as user: Yes.

Personal opinion as developer: I rather avoid adding more settings just for the sake of settings, since every setting we place also can add bugs and needs to be maintained etc.

Currently there’s no “simple” way to make this even happen. The value needs somekind of place to be configured in, and since it would be shared by both QtWidgets and QtQuick apps, both app frameworks would need to check if that file exists, etc etc…

Basically, it gets very complicated. Actual pure code wise, it would likely be one weekend of work (and more for testing), but when it comes to the whole KDE ecosystem that would possibly use this value, things get weirder. It would need to be specified properly etc.

Settings always come with a cost. Sometimes the cost is more hidden than other times.

However, if we only had QtWidgets or QtQuick apps, it would be much simpler. :slight_smile:

Things can be figured out, but for now, since it’s not even released yet, we would like to see what feedback we get, do we need to change the value (and which is the next value if we do), and if we add settings we should go through other items we can make configurable (personal dream would be changeable outline contrast)…

Anyway I hope it helps to understand that we can’t add settings always immediately, not because it’s “not possible” but because there can be a lot overhead we don’t have time to figure out. And I made this change on my free time too lol.

I ask for patience and understanding. :heart: Your settings wishes are heard (and the user-me also wants them), and in ideal world we could have a theme that people can tweak and tinker with from some settings menu to make it perfect for everyone. :slight_smile: But let’s just see what happens when it goes to more wider public first.

Edit: also dont forget, whenever we add any setting, there’s going to be complaining we have too many settings :joy: there’s no winning!


I will be harsh but honest, this kind of change is the same behavior of GNOME devs, they do what they like and finish by locking everything for final users to avoid making things right.

we would like to see what feedback we get, do we need to change the value (and which is the next value if we do)

KDE was always directed by the concept of “If it’s possible, you can customize it!”, I prefer the current round value, and increasing it without providing any easy mean (without recompiling) to revert it is not appealing at all. :slight_smile:

The same move was done for icons size, and now we are struggling with them. :sob:

Thank you for your detailed post!

The settings thingy was merely a suggestion (and completely made from a user’s perspective, of course) - I don’t expect anything.
And there certainly are dozens (or even hundreds) of things that are currently much, much more important.
But perhaps, one day, if one or several developers are really bored :wink: , somebody picks up this idea…

1 Like

A lot of old man yells at ~cloud~ rounded corners going on in this thread lmao. Get with the times, grandpas. Modern UI design languages have rounded corners because that’s just better, old UIs had square corners because of technical limitations.

I’m glad the overview effect had its corner radius reduced because it wasn’t matching the rest of plasma, but I honestly wouldn’t have minded if instead plasma became rounder.


For small UIs (16px icons) on laptops, this will surely look too much round


You may be right - some common resolutions for smaller laptops can be 1280x800 and 1280x720 px…
I use those 16px icons myself on one the laptops.

Yeah, if adding round feature into settings seems too much, then it would have been nice if the changes were packaged as a whole separate theme called “Round Breeze” and let the original one at its current state.

The difficulty with such a solution is that this would cause double the work to maintain it - this would not be feasible…

Better to find the best possible compromise for all scenarios (and people’s tastes), which clearly is not an easy task.