On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:32:13 -0400, Georg Wrede <[email protected]> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0400, Georg Wrede <[email protected]>
wrote:
(OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We
Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page,
and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is
dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the
small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox??
So now I have to learn to remember to grab bigger pictures near some
edge. And I really can't see *any* valid benefit for having to drag
the picture. I'd rather have it the old way, where the mouse pointer
simply changes shape, so you know you're dragging. Damn, damn...)
On my system, dragging the image drags a translucent copy of the
image, so I can still see where my mouse pointer is aimed. Maybe you
don't have enough colors enabled on your screen?
Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the
next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose*
for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer,
cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles.
I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging,
what it is he's dragging?
It might be useful if you accidentally start dragging the wrong thing, and
then realize because you are dragging the wrong picture/text/etc.
But my point was really: you complained that you couldn't see the target
because the picture is covering it. My experience is that I can clearly
see the target because the picture is translucent (I can see the target
"underneath" the picture).
-Steve
