Empathy List Archives

M

MichaelAtOz

Tue, Jan 13, 2015 5:38 AM

http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11025/preferences_editor.jpg

I think the preferences should be sized to show all of the options. But that
is just my view...

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Preferences-Editor-size-tp11025.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

<http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11025/preferences_editor.jpg> I think the preferences should be sized to show all of the options. But that is just my view... ----- Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above. The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ -- View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Preferences-Editor-size-tp11025.html Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

T

tdeagan

Tue, Jan 13, 2015 5:55 AM

I agree! It's very frustrating when you miss settings because they are below
the fold. I missed a bunch of Slic3r settings for a long time because of
that.

The challenge is the crappy height on things like the 1366 x 768 laptop I
use a lot of the time. It seems big, but a lot of app's modals can't seem
to fit in the constrained height (and a strange number of apps don't allow
resize on pref modals.)

If the preference set is too big to fit on a page, then expand/collapse
boxes for preference box sets might be an option.

It also seems to be a common pattern now for large preference sets to have a
treeview on one side and small sets on the other. I don't know if this is
an easy Qt paradigm or how much work it would be to refactor for that. But
it does make the layout overall easier since any given page has just a
couple prefs.
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11026/Clipboard02.png

--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Preferences-Editor-size-tp11025p11026.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I agree! It's very frustrating when you miss settings because they are below the fold. I missed a bunch of Slic3r settings for a long time because of that. The challenge is the crappy height on things like the 1366 x 768 laptop I use a lot of the time. It _seems_ big, but a lot of app's modals can't seem to fit in the constrained height (and a strange number of apps don't allow resize on pref modals.) If the preference set is too big to fit on a page, then expand/collapse boxes for preference box sets might be an option. It also seems to be a common pattern now for large preference sets to have a treeview on one side and small sets on the other. I don't know if this is an easy Qt paradigm or how much work it would be to refactor for that. But it does make the layout overall easier since any given page has just a couple prefs. <http://forum.openscad.org/file/n11026/Clipboard02.png> -- View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Preferences-Editor-size-tp11025p11026.html Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

M

MichaelAtOz

Tue, Jan 13, 2015 6:22 AM

The height could be cut somewhat by placing some of the fields next to each
other. But making it a bit bigger is simpler.

Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Preferences-Editor-size-tp11025p11027.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

The height could be cut somewhat by placing some of the fields next to each other. But making it a bit bigger is simpler. ----- Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above. The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ -- View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Preferences-Editor-size-tp11025p11027.html Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

discuss@lists.openscad.org

Preferences/Editor size

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/

The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/