https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=169744
--- Comment #10 from nobu <[email protected]> --- (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #8) > Yes, attachment 204342 [details] shows incorrect UI layout behavior. > > IIUC the Deck/Content panel minimum is calculated against the minimum needed > to fully expose all relevant controls. I'd *thought* it was calculated for > each Deck and each was discrete, but that may not be. > > With 'minimumwidth' set false, is your ability to drag the 'Functions' deck > narrow until it shows the "collapse" arrow impacted? Of course "Yes". I can move until it becomes completely invisible. In the Japanese UI, reverting to "True" will allow the function deck to be slightly narrower. Looks like the same minimum width as the function deck in English UI. > Without the 'minimumwidth' set false (i.e. a new profile defaults), when > 'Functions' gets stuck in this over width size are the other decks also > affected? Is there a deck that matches the width of the 'Functions' deck? After setting up a function deck, if you display other decks, they will all appear with the same width as the function deck. Of course, you can manually adjust the width of decks other than the function deck to be narrower. > I suspect we'd be looking for a SB widget that when first used has a label > or textbox with a fixed width and is not allowed to wrap so the default > minimum gets an over width assignment. Which content panel, which deck? Excuse me. I don't understand the meaning of this question. > Steps to reproduce reliably starting from default profile are going to be > needed. Yes, I have found it. But it's hard to explain. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
