Dave Page wrote:
>I didn't realise the windows were resizable - dialogues generally
>aren't. In fact looking at them, most of ours aren't. From a good design
>point of view, this is a bad thing because we have dialogues basically
>performing the same function (ie showing object properties), that are
>designed in an inconsistent manner.
>
Oh Dave, what's the point?
Most dialogs don't have content that makes resizing senseful, so why
should they resize? To have plenty of white space?
Stacking modal dialogs is much worse design, and actually dialog design
*is* consistent regarding sizing: all dialogs resize in the ranges it
makes sense, i.e. not bigger than necessary, and not smaller to prevent
hiding of vital information.
>Perhaps in the next version we should consider a different layout for
>the dialogues - something that lends itself to resizing more that we can
>use across the board, and something that is more visually appealing
>(that's a criticism I've heard a couple of times in the past) as well as
>functional.
>
How "more visually appealing", more colors, fancy bitmaps? Can't
remember fundamental criticism about this, please state the details.
>>I certainly won't agree to screw up the window handling for
>>getting some
>>percent more usable screen size.
>>
>>
>
>With resizable dialogues we won't need to.
>
They are already, and they have been right from the start (for view) and
a few days after initial implementation (for function).
Especially when talking about functions, there are really other items
preventing fast development than shape and smell of a dialog, I'm
talking about the poor debugging (i.e. non-existent) debugging
facilities for plpgsql. I'm thinking about intelligent support for that
(not in a modal dialog of course)
Regards,
Andreas