Response below.
Mikeal Rogers wrote:
It's also worth noting, and mde can expand upon this if he agrees, that
the possibilities for problems with different window sizes is much
higher in a design that follows chandler desktop exactly may be more of
a schedule risk than the perceived design work. Just a thought.
-Mikeal
Actually, I believe our stated goal is to give full, uncompromised
support to anyone using 1024x768-sized screen resolution.
(And from what I understand lower than that is *qualified support,*
which -- even though we haven't explicitly described that -- seems to
mean something like (in Miracle Max voice, from the Princess Bride)
"*mostly* works." That means that people with 800x600 resolution would
have the buttons rendering off-screen, and we're hoping they will scroll
down to see them.)
Now that I am actually going to check for myself -- it looks like the
current, non-collapsible design does not actually fit in 1024x768
resolution in a default Firefox install, because of the addition of the
tabs. Looks like it still just barely fits in IE7. That stuff is already
getting pretty compressed in there -- but I'm guessing our solution
there would be to shave down the description field even more? Can one of
the designers comment on this for me?
That was one of the reasons I even brought up the idea originally of
doing something to accommodate the vertical space problem -- it's
getting really tight, and that description field is already pretty cut
down, forcing everyone to suffer for the sake of the lowest common
denominator. The collapsible sections would allow us not to penalize
people with bigger screens, but still let people on smaller ones see the
all-important buttons. That was the original driver for the discussion.
Matthew
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
