On Thursday, December 20, 2007, at 09:35AM, "Christiaan Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 20 Dec 2007, at 6:30 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > >> >> On Thursday, December 20, 2007, at 08:31AM, "Christiaan Hofman" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On 20 Dec 2007, at 4:58 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 20, 2007, at 5:11 AM, James Harrison wrote: >>>> >>>>> Also, Simon raised the minor issue previously of the amount of >>>>> padding >>>>> around the PDF previews in the right pane. The padding increases as >>>>> the preview size increases, which eats up a good bit of screen >>>>> space >>>>> at the larger preview sizes. If it's not a good idea to fix the >>>>> left >>>>> side padding at a relatively narrow value, a reasonable alternative >>>>> might be to save the scroll position of the right pane to the >>>>> library >>>>> file along with the icon size (which is currently saved). That >>>>> would >>>>> allow folks to position their preview display to the size, width >>>>> and >>>>> extent of padding desired. >>>> >>>> The padding is a value used in layout of the entire grid, so >>>> having it >>>> smaller on the edges isn't really an option. If you select an icon, >>>> you'll see that it's actually drawn in a square, and there's very >>>> little padding on the left (and the title extends into the padded >>>> area). Some of those layout choices were based on the assumption >>>> that >>>> it would be in the bottom preview pane in BD, so you'd see them laid >>>> out horizontally and vertically. >>>> >>> >>> As a remark on James's remarks, the padding is actually smaller when >>> the icon size is smaller, though percentually it is bigger (it is >>> calculated as 32 + iconwidth / 14). >>> >>> I guess we could make it a bit smaller. What about 5 * round(2 + >>> iconwidth / 50) ? >> >> I don't think it can really shrink below 32 because the text is >> drawn in the (vertical) padding. If there were no labels, it could >> be a lot tighter. >> >> -- adam > >We could differentiate between vertical and horizontal padding. I >think the horizontal padding should be a multiple of 5 because of the >insertion marker calculation.
A square grid and uniform padding was a fundamental assumption, so I'm afraid of a rewrite if vertical and horizontal spacing are different; I'm not even sure where that's assumed in the code at this point, and it would require a fair amount of testing. I think the real problem is that it's stuck in a narrow view, so we really don't get the benefit (visually or practically) of the dynamic layout. Subclassing it to create a single column view might be better. adam ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
