lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Search box changes


From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: Search box changes
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:51:42 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "Wols Lists" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: Search box changes


On 08/08/11 16:04, Phil Holmes wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"
<address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Search box changes


On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 05:33:45PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
I've prepared some changes for the web search box in line with what
I suggested in
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1806 - screenshot
attached.

I'd need to look at the effects of the patch to see how it behaves
in a 800-pixel wide screen.

I didn't expect it to, but it looks fine. Image attached.  I would
actually propose not supporting screens this narrow - even netbooks
typically run 1024x600.

And then people like me get royally pee-d off!

I HATE HATE HATE screens that only work when maximised. I typically have
a whole bunch of programs running at once, and try and arrange my screen
so that *all* of them are partially visible *all* the time.

Anything that tries to force me to run full-screen generally annoys me
so much that I stop using it.

If it needs that much screen estate, fair enough, but if it doesn't need
it don't use it! Let the USER decide how much screen they want to give
it, don't demand that it be allowed to take the lot!

Cheers,
Wol


It doesn't only work when maximised. Like just about every windowed application on the planet, as you reduce the size of the window, the furniture is squeezed until, eventually, much of it becomes unreadable or disappears from view. You choose the play-off between how much real estate it takes and how much detail you want displayed. But I remain of the opinion that we should not make design decisions based on the need to support extremely outdated hardware.

--
Phil Holmes





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]