Viewport (semi)transperancy, background, overlaping viewports

[littleevilllama]

This is just a suggestion, so don't be harsh please

Could look something like this:
    %Vt([from 0 to F] to indicate amount of transperancy);
    %Vb([000000 to FFFFFF] like now or ["background.bmp"] or [a/b/c to display already loaded image])
    %Vo to indicate that the viewport overlaps on some other viewport...

Viewport semitransperancy would truly be very eye-candish. There is a long forgotten patch somewhere deep in patch tracker that allows overlapping viewports and setting background for viewports, so there is some work done...
Don't say that it's useless or that no one needs it, thats not true. Some viewports with a background could be used for displaying text boxes while volume is being changed, or a warning then its value is greater than 0, it would allow some really neat effects or make background change depending on a screen (lets say you have one background for all the screens _{*THAT WOULD SAVE SO MUCH SPACE IN SKIN "RAM"*} and viewports with backgrounds set in them... or just go and look to "XL Fuzed" skin for 220x176 targets... look at those bars on top and bottom and you'll get the idea). Same goes for semitransparency.
Now about overlapping viewports. Why are you so afraid of them? Again, very concretely, imagine having progressbar with info in it... it sounds useful, doesn't it? It could be used for displaying battery in % on top of the icon that displays approx. amount, title of the song on top of progressbar to save space on smaller screens and make them more useful (for example in SBS where we don't have much space anyway), awesome text effects (shades, depth), etc...
Combine all of these things and they become even better

Please, don't point that "rockbox is not a democracy" or that "if you want these things go and make them yourself". If I knew c or c++ AND had time I WOULD. Too bad I only know pascal ^{yeay, I can program egg timer} I would really want to know why you don't want these features in, not that you JUST don't want...

Miau ^{Sorry for my bad english, I hope text is readable}


_{SOAP Edit:
Please do not "yell" in subject lines.  All caps is not nice.  Self-created "categories" are also unneeded and unwanted.}

[Chronon]

You need to use a different image format then.  BMPs don't support transparency. 

For overlapping viewports, things also get more complicated because you need to specify some sort of stack that tells what order the layers should be drawn.  This is necessary with or without transparency. 

I think you have it a bit backwards, though.  By default nothing will ever get done.  It requires someone to think something is a good idea and do work to make things change.  So, the burden rests on the idea itself being interesting enough and reasonable enough that it attracts someone's interest.

[littleevilllama]

Not image transparency- viewport. Getting background and viewport info, adding RGB values and dividing them by 2 would give you 50 percent transparent overlay from viewport... thats how I understand transparency It might be stupid though. Only make it use background as backbone for transparency would be enough.

Non overlapping viewport has priority to be drawn first, others on top of it... thats basically it.

And finally, the reason for making this topic is because I'm trying to get someones attention

[Chronon]

For a set of overlapping viewports, there is no pre-defined order.  They can't all just be drawn "on top".  You need to organize the layers in a stack (like image editing programs do).

[littleevilllama]

Yes, in same order that they are layed out (arranged) in layer screen for example in photoshop. In rockbox they are diplayed in the way that they are loaded thats the same...