Re: Search box changes

[Wols Lists]

On 09/08/11 09:51, Phil Holmes wrote:
> ----- 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 to support extremely outdated hardware.
> 
I know. I'm not saying you should support outdated hardware, and I'm
quite happy for you to take all the space you need. BUT what I AM saying
is "don't assume you've got the entire screen to yourself!"

The number of pixels you have on screen is irrelevant. What matters is
the number of pixels the user can spare. When I'm "pond"ing, typically I
will have a kate window with my .ly, one okular window with my pdf
output, maybe another window with the scanned original. And with my
modern widescreen monitor, that gives them an average of 400 pixels
each. Now you're saying that I really need at least a thousand to view
your screen!? WTF!?

As I say, use all the space you need. But just remember, on my *modern*
*widescreen* monitor, I've only got 300 pixels to spare to you ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol