Okay, okay, you have your opinion. I have mine. I think it is great you are giving the user the ability to control the column widths. It is just customary I have learned over the years with UI design that controls should never visually look like they are being trimmed off by a column resizing as they currently do if it can be avoided. To me it conveys to the user that it is visually broken. I would limit its width by adding about 2 pixels of padding so it never gets cut off. 1 or 2 pixels of screen estate will not be missed. I guarantee it. ;-) This behavior is typical of other windowing behaviors you see in KDE and Win32 API.
-Mark In the Jay Garcia wrote: > 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. > >
