On Aug 13, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Glynn Clements wrote:
Maciej Sieczka wrote:
OK. I see Michael's points. One thing though:
Also, while the GRASS icons may seem large to some,
They are too large.
That depends upon your monitor resolution. Icons need to have
sufficient pixels and also need to be physically large enough on
screen. On a low resolution monitor, the pixel size tends to be the
limiting factor; on a high resolution monitor, the physical size is
the limiting factor.
Ideally, you would have icons available in a range of pixel sizes, and
select the size based upon the monitor resolution, monitor size and
your eyesight. Windows has 16, 24, 32 and 48-pixel versions of most of
the shell icons, while Gnome/KDE apps tend to have 16, 22, 24, 32, 48
and 64 pixel versions.
In fact, wxPython can resize icons, within reason given their base
resolution, on the fly. I originally had the 'classic' icons resized
because of a bug in earlier versions of wxPython. That has been
dropped but looks like it could easily be reimplemented.
Example: in digitizer half of the tools are not
visible unless you manually extend the window width.
That's a bug (or maybe a limitation in wxPython, but I don't think
so). A window's minimum size should be sufficient for all of its
subwindows to obtain their minimum size and to be visible.
I think I spotted where this is this morning but don't have time right
now to look at it in detail.
This hampers
usability. Is there a way to deal with that? Like automatically
adjust
windows sizes to accomodate all the icons which are supposed to be
visible?
This ought to be possible. wx.Window has SetSizerAndFit(), which
causes the Sizer's minimum size to be propagated up to the WM, so the
WM won't normally allow the window to be any smaller.
This may not work with aui toolbars. These are somewhat special. But
will look into it.
Michael
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
