Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:

> At 7:39 AM -0800 12/1/2016, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>BNig wrote:
>>>  that is determined somewhat arbitrarily by the
>>>  revBackScriptLibrary in handler
>>>  on newGraphic
>>>   if the width of the target < 9 and the height of the target < 9 then
>>  >    .... use default values
>>  Would that be a user experience bug?
>> What would be a good reason to prevent the user from doing a
>> reasonable action like this?
>> If the size is explicitly set, why not let it remain so?
> I expect this was done to prevent the case where someone:
> 1. chooses a graphic tool from the Tools palette
> 2. clicks to start dragging out the graphic
> 3. accidentally double-clicks instead and ends the graphic, resulting
> in an unintentionally-tiny graphic
> It also lets you click once with a graphic tool to create a
> default-size graphic at that spot.
> Perhaps newGraphic could test what tool is chosen, and change the
> size only if the tool is "graphic".

I can see the benefit of minimizing occurrences of objects that are *prohibitively* small to work with, but am less enthused about constraining options for the user at the much lower threshold of mere possible inconvenience.

I'd opt for a 4px threshold.

 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web

use-livecode mailing list
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 

Reply via email to