Please change the 2.4.0 input field's resize behaviour

[Mark Scott-7]

Hi,

I find that the change introduced in 2.4.0 to the input field's resize
behaviour makes using Pidgin very, very awkward indeed.  I regularly
send multi-line messages and being able to see the outgoing message in
its entirety is a desirable feature for me.  Frankly, I'm struggling to
see any benefit at all for users in the new implementation.

I'd like to request that this particular change be reverted or that the
resize behaviour be made configurable.  I'm rolling back to 2.3.1 and
won't be upgrading again unless/until the previous implementation is
available once more.

Thanks for all the work on Pidgin.

--
Mark Scott
mark@...

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Anthony Catel-2]

You can change the number of lines displayed on /pidgin/gtkconv.c line :
4388/4389

/* Show a maximum of 4 lines */
lines = MIN(lines, 4);
wrapped_lines = MIN(MAX(wrapped_lines, 2), 4);

Mark Scott a e'crit :

> Hi,
>
> I find that the change introduced in 2.4.0 to the input field's resize
> behaviour makes using Pidgin very, very awkward indeed.  I regularly
> send multi-line messages and being able to see the outgoing message in
> its entirety is a desirable feature for me.  Frankly, I'm struggling to
> see any benefit at all for users in the new implementation.
>
> I'd like to request that this particular change be reverted or that the
> resize behaviour be made configurable.  I'm rolling back to 2.3.1 and
> won't be upgrading again unless/until the previous implementation is
> available once more.
>
> Thanks for all the work on Pidgin.
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Mark Scott-8]

Hi Anthony,

Anthony Catel wrote:

> You can change the number of lines displayed on /pidgin/gtkconv.c line :
> 4388/4389

Yes, modifying the source and building my own binary would certainly be
possible.  However, I'd rather not have to do this for each subsequent
release, and a patch to make the input field resizable at runtime would
be more complex than simply hard-coding a larger fixed size.

I see that another user has filed a bug report in the Debian BTS :

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=469109

I think I'll wait to see what the Pidgin developers think of the request
to revert to the previous behaviour (or what the Debian package
maintainers think of applying a patch) before I start rolling my own
packages.

Thanks & regards,

--
Mark Scott
mark@...

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Etan Reisner-3]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:53:05AM +0000, Mark Scott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I find that the change introduced in 2.4.0 to the input field's resize
> behaviour makes using Pidgin very, very awkward indeed.  I regularly
> send multi-line messages and being able to see the outgoing message in
> its entirety is a desirable feature for me.  Frankly, I'm struggling to
> see any benefit at all for users in the new implementation.

Do you really regularly send IMs that are longer than four full lines? Are
these IMs something other than normal text (i.e. code snippets)? Are these
longer IMs routinely five lines, six lines, some larger number, unbounded?
Were you really happier having to either constantly resize the input area
to accomodate these larger messages and then back down again to a normal
size, or happier with an average of wasted space?

Is there some middle ground that would serve your purpose and yet provide
the benefits of the cureent automatically resizing input area.

<snip>
> Thanks for all the work on Pidgin.
>
> --
> Mark Scott
> mark@...

    -Etan

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Festival.Star]

Etan Reisner schrieb:

> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:53:05AM +0000, Mark Scott wrote:
>  
>> Hi,
>>
>> I find that the change introduced in 2.4.0 to the input field's resize
>> behaviour makes using Pidgin very, very awkward indeed.  I regularly
>> send multi-line messages and being able to see the outgoing message in
>> its entirety is a desirable feature for me.  Frankly, I'm struggling to
>> see any benefit at all for users in the new implementation.
>>    
>
> Do you really regularly send IMs that are longer than four full lines? Are
> these IMs something other than normal text (i.e. code snippets)? Are these
> longer IMs routinely five lines, six lines, some larger number, unbounded?
> Were you really happier having to either constantly resize the input area
> to accomodate these larger messages and then back down again to a normal
> size, or happier with an average of wasted space?
>
> Is there some middle ground that would serve your purpose and yet provide
> the benefits of the cureent automatically resizing input area.
>
> <snip>
>  
>> Thanks for all the work on Pidgin.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Scott
>> mark@...
>>    
>
>     -Etan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support mailing list
> Support@...
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
>  

Ethan it's not about the length of a message. It is about the look of
the whole window, everyone has its own prefernces and a lot  people
including me don't like it if the window resizes automatically. (It is
all about noisiness) So from my point of view that feature is an
enforcement. It would really be fine to make it optional.

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Mark Scott-7]

Hi Etan,

thanks for the reply.

Etan Reisner wrote:

>> I find that the change introduced in 2.4.0 to the input field's resize
>> behaviour makes using Pidgin very, very awkward indeed.  I regularly
>> send multi-line messages and being able to see the outgoing message in
>> its entirety is a desirable feature for me.  Frankly, I'm struggling to
>> see any benefit at all for users in the new implementation.
>
> Do you really regularly send IMs that are longer than four full lines?

Yes, very often.  I've got several years of logs I can analyze if you'd
like hard stats.  There will be a mixture of paragraphs that flow,
unbroken, to more than four full lines and messages containing anywhere
from several to many explicit linefeeds.

> Are
> these IMs something other than normal text (i.e. code snippets)? Are these
> longer IMs routinely five lines, six lines, some larger number, unbounded?

Messages I exchange with colleagues run from one character to, I expect,
a dozen lines.  Code snippets, exception stacktraces, lists of
instructions, XML, problem descriptions etc..

They're ultimately bounded by the MSN protocol's limit on message size.
  I don't know what that limit might be but do hit it occasionally.

Looking at my current Pidgin 2.3.1 window I can see I have 12 lines
visible in the input field and 40 lines of conversation visible (with,
as it happens, 132 chars per line).

> Were you really happier having to either constantly resize the input area
> to accomodate these larger messages and then back down again to a normal
> size, or happier with an average of wasted space?

Really much happier with what you consider "wasted space".  I wouldn't
have filed a report otherwise ;-)

We clearly have different ideas on what's "normal".  I never found
myself constantly resizing anything.  Hardly ever, in fact.  I guess
that suggests 10 to 12 lines is, for me, enough to give sufficient
context to whatever I'm currently typing.

> Is there some middle ground that would serve your purpose and yet provide
> the benefits of the cureent automatically resizing input area.

IMHO your premise is flawed.  I don't see any benefit at all in an
auto-resizing area.  To me, it's too small and the auto-resizing is
distracting and irritating.  YMMV.

Regards.

--
Mark Scott
mark@...

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Kevin Stange]

Mark Scott wrote:

> Hi Etan,
>
> thanks for the reply.
>
> Etan Reisner wrote:
>> Are
>> these IMs something other than normal text (i.e. code snippets)? Are these
>> longer IMs routinely five lines, six lines, some larger number, unbounded?
>
> Messages I exchange with colleagues run from one character to, I expect,
> a dozen lines.  Code snippets, exception stacktraces, lists of
> instructions, XML, problem descriptions etc..
>
> They're ultimately bounded by the MSN protocol's limit on message size.
>   I don't know what that limit might be but do hit it occasionally.
>
> Looking at my current Pidgin 2.3.1 window I can see I have 12 lines
> visible in the input field and 40 lines of conversation visible (with,
> as it happens, 132 chars per line).
>

Is this a maximized window?  I would wager that most Pidgin users don't
keep their IM windows this large most of the time.  A lot of the changes
in this vein were motivated by the idea of making the conversation work
better at smaller sizes and may have failed to consider users that have
extremely large windows.  That said, we would likely not do terribly
much to accommodate someone who thought everything seemed too far apart
in a maximized buddy list window, so what we feel about very large
windows may be similar.

Since I keep my windows "small and comfortable" I can't really say I
have anything to say on our policy about large windows.

Kevin



_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Etan Reisner-3]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:18:35PM +0100, Festival.Star wrote:
> Ethan it's not about the length of a message. It is about the look of
> the whole window, everyone has its own prefernces and a lot  people
> including me don't like it if the window resizes automatically. (It is
> all about noisiness) So from my point of view that feature is an
> enforcement. It would really be fine to make it optional.

The *window* should not be resizing automatically, if your window itself
is changing sizes something is either going wrong or you have a very tiny
window such that GTK+ can't resize into the history area without violating
a minimum size requirement of some component. The input area is all that
should be resizing.

The only way to make it an option would be to have the options be the
current method and 'manual sizing with no resizing at all'. With the
expection of Mark here I have yet to see anyone who is annoyed by the four
line limit actively indicate that they leave their input area at a large
size for normal IM messages.

I have begun to consider that perhaps we should not cap the input area
size and allow it to grow as much as someone wants it to (until it
collapses the history area to one line) and then have it resize back down,
though that will be incredibly visually jarring I imagine. Does this idea
sound reasonable to anyone?

Note, I'm not concerned about whether this change is seen as 'enforcing'
anything because without actual reasons for why a manual resize is needed
I'm not at all convinced it should come back. I am more than open to
tweaking the current scheme to make it fit more people better however.

    -Etan

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Some user]

I agree with the original post. I can't figure out why this would have been changed. I want my window to be whatever size I want it. Currently I can only see about 2 lines of text, then it switches to scroll at 4 lines. Very annoying if I want to see my whole message.

Mark Scott-8 wrote:

Hi Anthony,

Anthony Catel wrote:

> You can change the number of lines displayed on /pidgin/gtkconv.c line :
> 4388/4389

Yes, modifying the source and building my own binary would certainly be
possible.  However, I'd rather not have to do this for each subsequent
release, and a patch to make the input field resizable at runtime would
be more complex than simply hard-coding a larger fixed size.

I see that another user has filed a bug report in the Debian BTS :

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=469109

I think I'll wait to see what the Pidgin developers think of the request
to revert to the previous behaviour (or what the Debian package
maintainers think of applying a patch) before I start rolling my own
packages.

Thanks & regards,

--
Mark Scott
[e-mail]

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
[e-mail]
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Mark Scott-7]

Kevin Stange wrote:

> Mark Scott wrote:

>> Looking at my current Pidgin 2.3.1 window I can see I have 12 lines
>> visible in the input field and 40 lines of conversation visible (with,
>> as it happens, 132 chars per line).
>
> Is this a maximized window?

No, not at all.  I seldom maximize windows.  I mostly use a laptop with
a 1920x1200 screen and my IDE is the only thing that's routinely
maximized.  The screen's aspect ratio simply makes most other maximized
windows look 'strange'.

My current Pidgin window turns out to be 887x957 pixels, including
window manager decorations.  That's probably an average size.

>  I would wager that most Pidgin users don't
> keep their IM windows this large most of the time.  A lot of the changes
> in this vein were motivated by the idea of making the conversation work
> better at smaller sizes and may have failed to consider users that have
> extremely large windows.

Genuine interest: you consider ~800x100 to be extremely large?  It feels
just right to me :-S

Regards.

--
Mark Scott
mark@...


_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Luke Schierer-5]

Mark Scott wrote:

> Kevin Stange wrote:
>
>> Mark Scott wrote:
>
>>> Looking at my current Pidgin 2.3.1 window I can see I have 12 lines
>>> visible in the input field and 40 lines of conversation visible (with,
>>> as it happens, 132 chars per line).
>> Is this a maximized window?
>
> No, not at all.  I seldom maximize windows.  I mostly use a laptop with
> a 1920x1200 screen and my IDE is the only thing that's routinely
> maximized.  The screen's aspect ratio simply makes most other maximized
> windows look 'strange'.
>
> My current Pidgin window turns out to be 887x957 pixels, including
> window manager decorations.  That's probably an average size.
>
>>  I would wager that most Pidgin users don't
>> keep their IM windows this large most of the time.  A lot of the changes
>> in this vein were motivated by the idea of making the conversation work
>> better at smaller sizes and may have failed to consider users that have
>> extremely large windows.
>
> Genuine interest: you consider ~800x100 to be extremely large?  It feels
> just right to me :-S
>
> Regards.
>

Since I find myself using pidgin today, instead of finch, I thought I'd
chime in here, I tend to use a window size of 646x569.  Still, the
default of about 2 lines is about all I would want to display most of
the time anyway.  The only times I'd grow an input area would be for
sending a code snippet over IM, which really isn't an ideal thing to be
doing to start with.

luke




_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Mark Scott-8]

Mark Scott wrote:

> Genuine interest: you consider ~800x100 to be extremely large?
                                       ^^^

Typo : should have been 1000.

Regards,

--
Mark Scott
mark@...

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Festival.Star]

Etan Reisner schrieb:

> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:18:35PM +0100, Festival.Star wrote:
>  
>> Ethan it's not about the length of a message. It is about the look of
>> the whole window, everyone has its own prefernces and a lot  people
>> including me don't like it if the window resizes automatically. (It is
>> all about noisiness) So from my point of view that feature is an
>> enforcement. It would really be fine to make it optional.
>>    
>
> The *window* should not be resizing automatically, if your window itself
> is changing sizes something is either going wrong or you have a very tiny
> window such that GTK+ can't resize into the history area without violating
> a minimum size requirement of some component. The input area is all that
> should be resizing.
>
> The only way to make it an option would be to have the options be the
> current method and 'manual sizing with no resizing at all'. With the
> expection of Mark here I have yet to see anyone who is annoyed by the four
> line limit actively indicate that they leave their input area at a large
> size for normal IM messages.
>
> I have begun to consider that perhaps we should not cap the input area
> size and allow it to grow as much as someone wants it to (until it
> collapses the history area to one line) and then have it resize back down,
> though that will be incredibly visually jarring I imagine. Does this idea
> sound reasonable to anyone?
>
> Note, I'm not concerned about whether this change is seen as 'enforcing'
> anything because without actual reasons for why a manual resize is needed
> I'm not at all convinced it should come back. I am more than open to
> tweaking the current scheme to make it fit more people better however.
>
>     -Etan
>  

What about automatically resizing _and_ letting the user resize the
window by his own? If you let the user decide it fits all people.
Everyone can choose his prefered size and if that size isn't enough the
message window resizes automatically. That would be the best from my
point of view. To get me right I like resizing but I don't like the
default size of the message window. (at the moment it is an enforcement)
The most useful thing for me talking about auto resizing would be a auto
resizing of the buddy list. Because that would be really useful.

Regards!

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Etan Reisner-3]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 06:57:52PM +0000, Mark Scott wrote:
<snip>

> >Do you really regularly send IMs that are longer than four full lines?
>
> Yes, very often.  I've got several years of logs I can analyze if you'd
> like hard stats.  There will be a mixture of paragraphs that flow,
> unbroken, to more than four full lines and messages containing anywhere
> from several to many explicit linefeeds.
>
> >Are
> >these IMs something other than normal text (i.e. code snippets)? Are these
> >longer IMs routinely five lines, six lines, some larger number, unbounded?
>
> Messages I exchange with colleagues run from one character to, I expect,
> a dozen lines.  Code snippets, exception stacktraces, lists of
> instructions, XML, problem descriptions etc..
>
> They're ultimately bounded by the MSN protocol's limit on message size.
>  I don't know what that limit might be but do hit it occasionally.

Yes, the current mechanism is most certainly tailored to IM usage which is
the sending of short-to-middling sentential data, and very much not to the
IM usage whereby large bits of multi-line data are sent back and forth.
I'm not sure I think that is a bad thing, I feel reasonably comfortable
stating that the overwhelming usage of IM is in fact the case we are
tailored for currently.

That being said, I do fully appreciate the other usage and would like to
make it as painless as possible. If you could analyze your logs and
determine what in fact your average message length (in lines) is and what
your 'routine' maximum length is, I would find that incredibly interesting
to know, and quite possibly very valuable (assuming your usage mirrors
others with similar patterns).

> Looking at my current Pidgin 2.3.1 window I can see I have 12 lines
> visible in the input field and 40 lines of conversation visible (with,
> as it happens, 132 chars per line).

I think, as Kevin indicated in his email, that IM windows of this size are
rare, and that, as he also indicated, much of the design here was to allow
for smaller yet functional windows.

As above however I really don't want to penalize those that keep large IM
windows, so suggestions for what could be done (other than adding the
manual sizing back as an option, at least for the moment) are welcomed.
Would a larger maximimum line allowance be acceptable? Would that resizing
be too annoying?

> >Were you really happier having to either constantly resize the input area
> >to accomodate these larger messages and then back down again to a normal
> >size, or happier with an average of wasted space?
>
> Really much happier with what you consider "wasted space".  I wouldn't
> have filed a report otherwise ;-)
>
> We clearly have different ideas on what's "normal".  I never found
> myself constantly resizing anything.  Hardly ever, in fact.  I guess
> that suggests 10 to 12 lines is, for me, enough to give sufficient
> context to whatever I'm currently typing.

I'm assuming given these statements that you in fact left your input area
at 12 lines at all times and did not shrink it after your large messages.
Which I believe is likely because of the large size of your IM window and
the fact that even at 12 lines your history area was large enough to be
useful. For many IM users 12 lines is not an input area size they could
tolerate as their windows are notably smaller than yours.

For example my conversation windows here at work contain ~20 lines of
history with the default 2 line input area. (For full disclosure, or
something. My window at home has a significantly larger history area but
that is an artifact of the window management layout I use at home and not
because I actively chose to make it that large.)

> >Is there some middle ground that would serve your purpose and yet provide
> >the benefits of the cureent automatically resizing input area.
>
> IMHO your premise is flawed.  I don't see any benefit at all in an
> auto-resizing area.  To me, it's too small and the auto-resizing is
> distracting and irritating.  YMMV.

Given your window size and your acceptance of a large input area even for
messages which don't require it you don't see any of the benefits, but
that doesn't mean they don't exist. The benefits are exactly for people
for whom the normal two lines is sufficient greater than 90% of the time,
but who for some part of the rest of the time need a larger input area to
fit their message. The auto-resizing allows them to not have wasted space
for the majority of their messages but to cleanly and automatically size
up to accomodate double length messages, which returning immediately to
the default size upon message sending.

Do you not see the benefit to that (assuming the usage model I laid out)?

> Regards.
>
> --
> Mark Scott
> mark@...

It is beginning to appear to me that there may very well be a usage case,
like yours, for which the auto-resizing is just not a viable option. I'm
assuming even if the widget sized itself to 12 lines on demand you
wouldn't like the size changing. If that is in fact the case I'm not sure
what option there really is other than to allow for disabling the
auto-resizing entirely and switching back to manual resizing. But I
haven't quite gotten there yet.

    -Etan

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Kevin Stange-2]

Mark Scott wrote:

> Kevin Stange wrote:
>
>> Mark Scott wrote:
>>  I would wager that most Pidgin users don't keep their IM windows this
>> large most of the time.  A lot of the changes in this vein were
>> motivated by the idea of making the conversation work better at
>> smaller sizes and may have failed to consider users that have
>> extremely large windows.
>
> Genuine interest: you consider ~800x100 to be extremely large?  It feels
> just right to me :-S
>

I do, but that doesn't mean I'm representative of the majority.  My IM
window is smaller than 640x480.  About 13 lines of scrollback with a 2
line entry area is what I have always used, so these changes basically
had no impact on my usage.

Kevin



_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Etan Reisner-3]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:27:21PM +0000, Mark Scott wrote:

> Kevin Stange wrote:
>
> >Mark Scott wrote:
>
> >>Looking at my current Pidgin 2.3.1 window I can see I have 12 lines
> >>visible in the input field and 40 lines of conversation visible (with,
> >>as it happens, 132 chars per line).
> >
> >Is this a maximized window?
>
> No, not at all.  I seldom maximize windows.  I mostly use a laptop with
> a 1920x1200 screen and my IDE is the only thing that's routinely
> maximized.  The screen's aspect ratio simply makes most other maximized
> windows look 'strange'.
>
> My current Pidgin window turns out to be 887x957 pixels, including
> window manager decorations.  That's probably an average size.

My window here at work is ~822x521, in part because I have side tabs, if
Windows wasn't such an anemic window manager they would be top tabs and my
window would be that much narrower. I happen to think I'm on the larger
size of IM windows here at work, though I'd have to poll people to find
out. (Is there a simple Windows tool to find out the current size of a
window? I used print screen and Gimp to get my numbers.)

> > I would wager that most Pidgin users don't
> >keep their IM windows this large most of the time.  A lot of the changes
> >in this vein were motivated by the idea of making the conversation work
> >better at smaller sizes and may have failed to consider users that have
> >extremely large windows.
>
> Genuine interest: you consider ~800x100 to be extremely large?  It feels
> just right to me :-S

Given the quick informal internet survey of screenshots found via google
(ignoring ones directly on pidgin.im) I get an average size of 466x354,
which is significantly smaller than your 887x957 and decidedly smaller
than my 822x521. So assuming my unscientific survey is representative I
don't think we are wrong in our belief that your window is extremely
large.

> Regards.
>
> --
> Mark Scott
> mark@...

    -Etan

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Etan Reisner-3]

Quick survey links:

http://linux.softpedia.com/screenshots/Pidgin_2.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Pidgin_Screenshot_Ubuntu.png

http://dengpeng.name/upload/images/screenshot-pidgin.png

http://gentoo-portage.com/up_img/img_800px/1956.png

http://bp2.blogger.com/_LgSkGaEDgCw/RyC6B0JJIPI/AAAAAAAAAIM/wGVonhGyrmg/s1600-h/Pidgin.jpg

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l160/Janvitus/Linux/screenshot2.resized.png

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Etan Reisner-3]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:24:24AM -0800, Some user wrote:
>
> I agree with the original post. I can't figure out why this would have been
> changed. I want my window to be whatever size I want it. Currently I can
> only see about 2 lines of text, then it switches to scroll at 4 lines. Very
> annoying if I want to see my whole message.

How often are your messages longer than two lines? How often longer than
four? When longer than four are they just longer or a lot longer? Would
having the input area resize to half the available space or two-thirds of
the available space be acceptable?

    -Etan

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Etan Reisner-3]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:07:33PM +0100, Festival.Star wrote:
> Again. Why not implementing both beahviours? I don't see any reason that
> would be in conflict with that. The user can decide which default size
> the message window has and he has the feature of auto resizing as well.
> Where is the problem?

It proved inaccurate and prone to failure to attempt to allow both manual
sizing and auto-resizing. 2.3.1 had this problem.

Whether an option to switch between autosizing and manual sizing is needed
is exactly what I'm hoping to get out of this discussion (and the
discussion currently progressing in #pidgin).

    -Etan

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

[Festival.Star]

Etan Reisner schrieb:

> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:24:24AM -0800, Some user wrote:
>  
>> I agree with the original post. I can't figure out why this would have been
>> changed. I want my window to be whatever size I want it. Currently I can
>> only see about 2 lines of text, then it switches to scroll at 4 lines. Very
>> annoying if I want to see my whole message.
>>    
>
> How often are your messages longer than two lines? How often longer than
> four? When longer than four are they just longer or a lot longer? Would
> having the input area resize to half the available space or two-thirds of
> the available space be acceptable?
>
>     -Etan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support mailing list
> Support@...
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
>  

Again. Why not implementing both beahviours? I don't see any reason that
would be in conflict with that. The user can decide which default size
the message window has and he has the feature of auto resizing as well.
Where is the problem?

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
Support@...
http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support