> Agreed. But that just means the current design of the dialogs do not take > smaller screens into account. Like the use of multiple group boxes on one > page; these can be split into tabs or separate pages. Admittedly, not in all > cases but definitely some pages like Editor which has 7 group boxes, some of > which could be split into sub-pages (in the treeview) or into tabs on the > Editor page.
Too many entries in list/tree/tab panels is also a bad UI design. > But you say in the next paragraph that you want the dialog to take up less > screen space so that you could see other windows? Yes, and the way to do that (IMHO) is scrollbars in the dialog. It's not designing the contents to fit inside a stamp sized dialog that fits screens that 99.9% of the users don't have:) > If the scrollpane route absolutely has to be taken because there is no other > alternative (and I believe there is) then what you propose here would be > acceptable. If I don't see scrollpanes, I'll be happy. We seem to agree that for the designed size no scrollpanes should be visible. I also say is that it's a very bad implementation that makes it impossible to use something in smaller screens than designed for - specially when there are simple ways to avoid it. Carlos _______________________________________________ Eap-bugs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-bugs
