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 ____________________________________________________________________ ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
