On 05/22/2002 8:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Enlightened Us With The Following Comment: > I think you are missing my point. Regardless of how wide the window or > columns can open the minimum width of the column should never allow the > checkbox control to partially disappear. It looks hokey to me and > unfinished. This doesn't logically make sense from a UI perspective. If > an object that is static such as a radio or checkbox is inside a column > then that column's minimum width is limited by the control's it > contains. It is different if the column contained only text. Users > expect columns to hide text when the width is small. > > -Mark > > Jay Garcia wrote: >> On 05/21/2002 10:42 PM, mark bokil Enlightened Us With The Following >> Comment: >> >>>Thanks for that great insight. Boy, gee you can really grab the border >>>and drag it. ;-) >>> >>>Users shouldn't have to drag around the borders of a UI to fix glitches >>>in the interface because UI controls don't have width minimum limits set >>>correctly. That is the programmers job. While it is a minor cosmetic >>>flaw I consider it a UI bug. >>> >>>-Mark >> >> >> >> Well, it's not a glitch, you tried to widen the column further than the >> default UI could handle and that's why the UI allows you to expand the >> window. Now, if it were a static window then what you saw would in fact, >> be a glitch. >> > >
Not missing your point at all .. The checkbox column is too narrow for the box to occupy 100% of it's space if forced by widening the groups column. And THIS is the reason behind giving the user control over sizing of the UI. You couldn't do this previously and therefore, in that instance, it was a "glitch". You only have so much "real estate" to work with and controlling the UI makes up for it. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org ** Post To Group ONLY, do NOT email **
