Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
1 click instead of 2?
I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of space. But I have no strong opinion on
this.
I prefer one click in
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
1 click instead of 2?
I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of space. But I have no strong opinion on
this.
I prefer one click in
Richard Heck wrote:
I've committed this now, with a reference to this discussion.
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
I've committed this now, with a reference to this discussion.
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
1 click instead of 2?
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
1 click instead of 2?
I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of space. But I have no strong opinion on
this.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
1 click instead of 2?
I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of space. But I have no strong opinion on
this.
the current dialog is ugly as hell.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
I've committed this now, with a reference to this discussion.
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
If the room is there, radiobuttons are
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:40:59AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio
buttons now instead of a combobox?
1 click instead of 2?
I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of space. But I have no strong
opinion
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 11:21:03AM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
1 click instead of 2?
I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of space. But I have no
On Saturday 23 June 2007 10:32:07 Andre Poenitz wrote:
If the room is there, radiobuttons are easier to use than comboboxes.
Andre'
I agree.
--
José Abílio
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio
buttons now
instead of a combobox?
Another reason is that you can see at a glance what the permissible
alignments are. Yet another is that enabling and disabling
Richard Heck wrote:
> I've committed this now, with a reference to this discussion.
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
I've committed this now, with a reference to this discussion.
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
1 click instead of 2?
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
> > instead of a combobox?
>
> 1 click instead of 2?
I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of space. But I have no strong opinion on
this.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
instead of a combobox?
1 click instead of 2?
I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of space. But I have no strong opinion on
this.
the current dialog is ugly as hell.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
> > I've committed this now, with a reference to this discussion.
>
> Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
> instead of a combobox?
If the room is there, radiobuttons
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:40:59AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > > Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio
> > > buttons now instead of a combobox?
> >
> > 1 click instead of 2?
>
> I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of space. But I have no
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 11:21:03AM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> >Edwin Leuven wrote:
> >>>Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio buttons now
> >>>instead of a combobox?
> >>1 click instead of 2?
> >
> >I'd prefer two clicks over the waste of
On Saturday 23 June 2007 10:32:07 Andre Poenitz wrote:
> If the room is there, radiobuttons are easier to use than comboboxes.
>
> Andre'
I agree.
--
José Abílio
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Could you remind me again about the reason why we use 5 radio
buttons now
instead of a combobox?
Another reason is that you can see at a glance what the permissible
alignments are. Yet another is that enabling and disabling
José Matos wrote:
OK. I think that the subject is important and I liked the discussion
there, now let us move to other (critical) bugs. :-)
Since I have to decide I opt for Richard's argument without any
demerit for Edwin patch/solution.
let me guess, you tossed a coin...?
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:59:21 Richard Heck wrote:
José Matos wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:42:34 Edwin Leuven wrote:
did you have a look at this one?
I had both under my radar. :-)
What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
Edwin's patch attempts to treat the
This patch addresses the usability bugs discussed in this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg121160.html
and largely implements Helge's suggestions. (Helge often seems to have
good ideas on these things.) The main change is that the Default
button is now a radio
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:28:06 Richard Heck wrote:
OK to apply?
OK.
Richard
--
José Abílio
José Matos wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:28:06 Richard Heck wrote:
OK to apply?
did you have a look at this one?
Index: src/frontends/qt4/QParagraph.cpp
===
--- src/frontends/qt4/QParagraph.cpp (revision 18850)
+++
José Matos wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:42:34 Edwin Leuven wrote:
did you have a look at this one?
I had both under my radar. :-)
What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
Edwin's patch attempts to treat the alignment that happens to be the
default (say,
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:42:34 Edwin Leuven wrote:
did you have a look at this one?
I had both under my radar. :-)
What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
--
José Abílio
Richard Heck wrote:
What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
there is a long thread on this but to summarize:
the question is whether we want a separate default button for the rare
situations in which we (1) change document layouts and (2) run into:
1 x is set and we change
On Friday 22 June 2007 18:21:52 Edwin Leuven wrote:
let me guess, you tossed a coin...?
Not on Fridays. :-)
In case it matters both solutions are better than what we have now, and I am
closer from Richard's reasoning in this case. Also after some time if no
consensus is reached it is better
José Matos wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 18:21:52 Edwin Leuven wrote:
let me guess, you tossed a coin...?
Not on Fridays. :-)
observational equivalent though...
In case it matters both solutions are better than what we have now,
sure
and I am closer from Richard's reasoning in this
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 07:21:52PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
José Matos wrote:
OK. I think that the subject is important and I liked the discussion
there, now let us move to other (critical) bugs. :-)
Since I have to decide I opt for Richard's argument without any
demerit for Edwin
I've committed this now, with a reference to this discussion.
Richard
Richard Heck wrote:
José Matos wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:42:34 Edwin Leuven wrote:
did you have a look at this one?
I had both under my radar. :-)
What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
José Matos wrote:
OK. I think that the subject is important and I liked the discussion
there, now let us move to other (critical) bugs. :-)
Since I have to decide I opt for Richard's argument without any
demerit for Edwin patch/solution.
let me guess, you tossed a coin...?
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:59:21 Richard Heck wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> > On Friday 22 June 2007 17:42:34 Edwin Leuven wrote:
> >> did you have a look at this one?
> >
> > I had both under my radar. :-)
> >
> > What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
>
> Edwin's patch attempts to
This patch addresses the usability bugs discussed in this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg121160.html
and largely implements Helge's suggestions. (Helge often seems to have
good ideas on these things.) The main change is that the "Default"
button is now a radio
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:28:06 Richard Heck wrote:
> OK to apply?
OK.
> Richard
--
José Abílio
José Matos wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:28:06 Richard Heck wrote:
OK to apply?
did you have a look at this one?
Index: src/frontends/qt4/QParagraph.cpp
===
--- src/frontends/qt4/QParagraph.cpp (revision 18850)
+++
José Matos wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:42:34 Edwin Leuven wrote:
did you have a look at this one?
I had both under my radar. :-)
What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
Edwin's patch attempts to treat the alignment that happens to be the
default (say,
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:42:34 Edwin Leuven wrote:
> did you have a look at this one?
I had both under my radar. :-)
What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
--
José Abílio
Richard Heck wrote:
What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
there is a long thread on this but to summarize:
the question is whether we want a separate default button for the rare
situations in which we (1) change document layouts and (2) run into:
1 x is set and we change
On Friday 22 June 2007 18:21:52 Edwin Leuven wrote:
> let me guess, you tossed a coin...?
Not on Fridays. :-)
In case it matters both solutions are better than what we have now, and I am
closer from Richard's reasoning in this case. Also after some time if no
consensus is reached it is better
José Matos wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 18:21:52 Edwin Leuven wrote:
let me guess, you tossed a coin...?
Not on Fridays. :-)
observational equivalent though...
In case it matters both solutions are better than what we have now,
sure
and I am closer from Richard's reasoning in this
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 07:21:52PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> >OK. I think that the subject is important and I liked the discussion
> >there, now let us move to other (critical) bugs. :-)
> >
> >Since I have to decide I opt for Richard's argument without any
> >demerit for
I've committed this now, with a reference to this discussion.
Richard
Richard Heck wrote:
José Matos wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 17:42:34 Edwin Leuven wrote:
did you have a look at this one?
I had both under my radar. :-)
What are the (minor) differences between both patches?
44 matches
Mail list logo
