Oh Dave, what's the point?I didn't realise the windows were resizable - dialogues generally aren't. In fact looking at them, most of ours aren't. From a good design point of view, this is a bad thing because we have dialogues basically performing the same function (ie showing object properties), that are designed in an inconsistent manner.
Most dialogs don't have content that makes resizing senseful, so why should they resize? To have plenty of white space?
Stacking modal dialogs is much worse design, and actually dialog design *is* consistent regarding sizing: all dialogs resize in the ranges it makes sense, i.e. not bigger than necessary, and not smaller to prevent hiding of vital information.
Perhaps in the next version we should consider a different layout forHow "more visually appealing", more colors, fancy bitmaps? Can't remember fundamental criticism about this, please state the details.
the dialogues - something that lends itself to resizing more that we can
use across the board, and something that is more visually appealing
(that's a criticism I've heard a couple of times in the past) as well as
functional.
They are already, and they have been right from the start (for view) and a few days after initial implementation (for function).I certainly won't agree to screw up the window handling for getting some percent more usable screen size.
With resizable dialogues we won't need to.
Especially when talking about functions, there are really other items preventing fast development than shape and smell of a dialog, I'm talking about the poor debugging (i.e. non-existent) debugging facilities for plpgsql. I'm thinking about intelligent support for that (not in a modal dialog of course)
Regards, Andreas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
