On 2/4/08 2:46 PM, "Adam M. Goldstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Ingrid Giffin wrote:
>> On 1/27/08 5:36 PM, "Adam M. Goldstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Jan 27, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Cloy Tobola wrote:
>>>> 1. I understand the change to the Local File column. When that column is
>>>> set to be very narrow, would it be better to have the number of linked
>>>> files appear [rather than just a paper clip]? After all, the paperclip
>>>> already appears in the column at the top. Just a thought.
>>> But then you'd have to look up at the top of the column to see what
>>> the number was for. There is a links column too, and you'd have to
>>> distinguish it from that.
>> By that rationale, every field in every column should be labeled with its
>> header; clearly not normal for a column view.
> I don't see what you're saying. Aren't the field names like "title"
> "author" and so on all displayed at the top of the column in the
> BibDesk table? Mail shows attachments in precisely the same way that
> BD does now, with a paper clip at the top of a column.
Note that I didn't say labeling every *column* is abnormal; I said labeling
every *field* in every column is abnormal.
I know it's a small thing to some, but using up 1/4" of screen real estate
can be a (small) nuisance. As far as telling the file column from the links
column: since I have put all the columns where I want them, I know perfectly
well which is which!
But yes, it's a small thing.
Best regards,
Ingrid Giffin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Bibdesk-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
