Please change the 2.4.0 input field's resize behaviour

[Luke Schierer-5]

Festival.Star wrote:

> 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
>>
>>  
> 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?

I am not sure, not having looked at the code any time recently, but I
would suspect, based on past endevours, that attempting to allow for
both manual resizing and autoresizing would be a nightmare to implement.

If it could be implemented correctly, I suspect it would be the ideal
solution.

Short of that, I see two options:  we could have a larger cap on the
growth (this would likely solve the usability issues for a significant
number of those complaining), or we could make the auto-growth an
option.  While it is also theoretically possible to allow a user to set
a default minimum size in preferences, I do not see us accepting that,
it would be extra maintance for very very little gain.

I think that it is fair to say that both of these options are being
*considered* but that Etan and others involved are attempting to avoid a
hasty, knee-jerk decision.

luke




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

[Etan Reisner-3]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:13:07PM +0100, Festival.Star wrote:

> I agree with your aggregation. If there is no possibility to have both
> features. I can only see two options.
>
> 1) Having an option to make auto resizing available or not (would change
> to manual resizing)
> 2) Letting the user decide which amount of default lines he woud like
>
> I would prefer option number one.
>
> Regards!

Yes, of the two I lean strongly towards option one as well. I'm still
hoping that some amount of tweaking the default line count and the maximum
line count will prove to be enough for people, so if that isn't enough for
people I'd really like to hear it.

    -Etan

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

[Festival.Star]

Etan Reisner schrieb:

> 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
>  

I agree with your aggregation. If there is no possibility to have both
features. I can only see two options.

1) Having an option to make auto resizing available or not (would change
to manual resizing)
2) Letting the user decide which amount of default lines he woud like

I would prefer option number one.

Regards!

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

[Ka-Hing Cheung-5]

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?

I tried once a long time ago, in
e7a18c70a00a0534e1e6f7956970e10d6d0b69ec. By default GtkPaned ignores
programatically requested size after it's been resized by the user,
although that can be hacked around. I didn't really like the hack, so it
was commented out.

-khc

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

[Mark Scott-7]

Etan Reisner wrote:

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

>> 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 use the Gimp to capture an individual window:

File -> Acquire -> Screenshot... -> Take a screenshot of a single window

Don't know if it can do the same on Windows though, nor of any
alternatives for Windows.

> 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.

But isn't it great when we find out people are successfully using our
software in ways we hadn't envisaged? ;-)

--
Mark Scott
mark@...

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

[Mark Scott-7]

Etan Reisner wrote:
> 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.

> 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).

OK, I'll cobble a script together and analyze them.  It'll have to wait
until this evening.

>> 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.

Yes, you're right - I almost never resize the input area after setting
its initial height (and I must say I'm not even concious of doing that).

> 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)?

Yes, I accept this.  I'm complaining from a purely personal point of
view (since I can't reasonably complain on behalf of anyone else).  I
guess I'm having a hard time being told my usage model is unusual :-S

> 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.

Sorry, but I found the auto-resizing very annoying.  It's just not the
way I expect (or want) software to behave.  The previous implementation
was perfect IMO.

But I'm pragmatic - if most of your users prefer the new implementation
and catering for everyone is technically difficult or requires ugly
hacks (which other posts in this thread referring to Gtk widgets
indicate) then I can understand and accept any reluctance to revert the
change or to provide a user preference to control behaviour.

--
Mark Scott
mark@...

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

[Mark Scott-7]

Etan Reisner wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:13:07PM +0100, Festival.Star wrote:
>> I agree with your aggregation. If there is no possibility to have both
>> features. I can only see two options.
>>
>> 1) Having an option to make auto resizing available or not (would change
>> to manual resizing)
>> 2) Letting the user decide which amount of default lines he woud like
>>
>> I would prefer option number one.
>>
>> Regards!
>
> Yes, of the two I lean strongly towards option one as well. I'm still
> hoping that some amount of tweaking the default line count and the maximum
> line count will prove to be enough for people, so if that isn't enough for
> people I'd really like to hear it.

I'd prefer complete, manual control over the relative sizes of history
and input areas.  I don't like applications second-guessing me.

--
Mark Scott
mark@...

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

[Mark Scott-7]

Luke Schierer wrote:

> 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.

I'm not sure why being ideal or not should be a consideration.  It's
possible, and people do it.  There are certainly alternatives, some of
which are more featureful and convenient (e.g. the IDE I use includes a
collaboration tool built on XMPP), but sending ad hoc code snippets via
IM seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  Horses for
courses, I suppose.

--
Mark Scott
mark@...

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

[Mark Doliner]

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:37:51 +0000, Mark Scott wrote

> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:27:21PM +0000, Mark Scott wrote:
> > (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 use the Gimp to capture an individual window:
>
> File -> Acquire -> Screenshot... -> Take a screenshot of a single window
>
> Don't know if it can do the same on Windows though, nor of any
> alternatives for Windows.

You can use Alt+PrintScreen to capture the currently active window, then paste
that into an image program.  And Gimp's "Screenshot of a single window" also
works in Windows.

-Mark

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

[Festival.Star]

Mark Scott schrieb:

> Etan Reisner wrote:
>  
>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:13:07PM +0100, Festival.Star wrote:
>>    
>>> I agree with your aggregation. If there is no possibility to have both
>>> features. I can only see two options.
>>>
>>> 1) Having an option to make auto resizing available or not (would change
>>> to manual resizing)
>>> 2) Letting the user decide which amount of default lines he woud like
>>>
>>> I would prefer option number one.
>>>
>>> Regards!
>>>      
>> Yes, of the two I lean strongly towards option one as well. I'm still
>> hoping that some amount of tweaking the default line count and the maximum
>> line count will prove to be enough for people, so if that isn't enough for
>> people I'd really like to hear it.
>>    
>
> I'd prefer complete, manual control over the relative sizes of history
> and input areas.  I don't like applications second-guessing me.
>
>  

Yeah that'ts the same for me. So making it optional would be the best
decision for me. (I can't speak for others either)

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

[Ethan Blanton-3]

Mark Scott spake unto us the following wisdom:
> thanks for the reply.

I want to take the time out to thank *you* for your replies!  Your
empirical data on how you use Pidgin and _why_ the current scheme
isn't working for you is great.  I appreciate the time you're taking
to help us make Pidgin better, and the polite and professional manner
in which you are doing it.

All too often all we can get is "I don't like the new behavior, give
me the old behavior back", which unfortunately means that Pidgin can
never get *better*.  Sometimes the old behavior might be the right
answer, but sometimes improvements are actually possible.  :-)

Ethan

--
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
                -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764


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

[Sascha Vogt]

Hi,

Etan Reisner wrote:
> 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.
I'm not entirely sure, if this was brought up to discussion already, but
would it be reasonable to be able to configure then min and the max
value in the preferences?
That would allow people to set min and max to the same values and have a
"static" input area, where the delivered defaults would be 2 to 4 lines.

I personally can live with the auto-resizing, but like Mark I
ocassionally send larger code snippets or stacktraces and then 4 lines
are somehow uncomfortable to read them, before sending (e.g to verify if
I had copied the right portions).

@Mark: If you've put together your script to analyze Pidgins logs, if
you don't mind, I would like to check my logs too.

Greetings
-Sascha-

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

Hi,

I did an update today and found it very difficult to use pidgin:

Yes, I am affected by the bug ~0 pixels height - I've seen it was
already discovered and probably addressed.

And I vote for auto-resizing input windows to an *option*. Firstly this
auto resizing feature really annoys me (my humble opinion!) and I just
like to have the input window 5 lines large even if I enter just one
line of text - I just like that way. So setting auto-resizing as an
option would be great. Also would like to be able to select min size and
max window size - so I can set it to 5 lines (both values)...

Hope it's helpful,
Marek

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

[quoderat]

Ethan,

Thanks for all the efforts in Pidgin.

I've been using it on a long time, and as strange as it may seem, the whole
reason I switched to Pidgin is because I've used other clients that had
non-resizable text input fields and found this unacceptable.

I want to be able to control what size my input text is. I frequently send
10+ line messages, as does my girlfriend and many of my friends, and I find
that I am unable to use Pidgin until this problem is corrected.

This isn't a threat or anything, just the truth, as I don't expect you to
care much about one users -- however, if Pidgin can't be made to somehow
have an adjustable text input size, then I (and my friends who also use
Pidgin) will be forced to switch to a different IM client that allows a
resizable text input field.

This is a non-negotiable requirement for my girlfriend and I (and several of
my friends) in an IM client.

Not sure why this was removed, but boy, does it make Pidgin hard to use.

Thanks again for all the efforts. I successfully used Pidgin for many years
with no complaints, but maybe it is time to move on.


Mike Miller



Ethan Blanton-3 wrote:

>
> Mark Scott spake unto us the following wisdom:
>> thanks for the reply.
>
> I want to take the time out to thank *you* for your replies!  Your
> empirical data on how you use Pidgin and _why_ the current scheme
> isn't working for you is great.  I appreciate the time you're taking
> to help us make Pidgin better, and the polite and professional manner
> in which you are doing it.
>
> All too often all we can get is "I don't like the new behavior, give
> me the old behavior back", which unfortunately means that Pidgin can
> never get *better*.  Sometimes the old behavior might be the right
> answer, but sometimes improvements are actually possible.  :-)
>
> Ethan
>
> --
> The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
> for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
> determined to commit crimes.
> -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Support mailing list
> Support@...
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Please-change-the-2.4.0-input-field%27s-resize-behaviour-tp15801664p15855602.html
Sent from the Pidgin Support List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

[Etan Reisner-3]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Sascha Vogt wrote:
<snip>
> I'm not entirely sure, if this was brought up to discussion already, but
> would it be reasonable to be able to configure then min and the max
> value in the preferences?
> That would allow people to set min and max to the same values and have a
> "static" input area, where the delivered defaults would be 2 to 4 lines.
<snip>

I have seen no reason to allow for a customizable maximum because if you
don't hit it you never know it is there and if you do hit it is can really
only serve to annoy, so the plan has been to allow the input area to grow
until there is only half the original history area left (or perhaps just a
third left) and be done with that part of the sizing. Whether this is
reasonably possible I don't yet know.

And as to allowing people to control the minimum, that's been my
suggestion for some time now. Though again the feasability of the idea is
yet to be tested.

> Greetings
> -Sascha-

    -Etan

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

Hi

On 05/03/2008, Etan Reisner <deryni@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Sascha Vogt wrote:
>  <snip>
>  > I'm not entirely sure, if this was brought up to discussion already, but
>  > would it be reasonable to be able to configure then min and the max
>  > value in the preferences?
>  > That would allow people to set min and max to the same values and have a
>  > "static" input area, where the delivered defaults would be 2 to 4 lines.
>  <snip>
>
>  I have seen no reason to allow for a customizable maximum because if you
>  don't hit it you never know it is there and if you do hit it is can really
>  only serve to annoy, so the plan has been to allow the input area to grow
>  until there is only half the original history area left (or perhaps just a
>  third left) and be done with that part of the sizing. Whether this is
>  reasonably possible I don't yet know.
>
>  And as to allowing people to control the minimum, that's been my
>  suggestion for some time now. Though again the feasability of the idea is
>  yet to be tested.
>

Can we set minimum and maximum value? so I can set both to the same
value and fixed size of input box? would be perfect! :)

All the best,
Marek

--
http://matulka.net/

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

[kirax2]

I would like to add my voice to those objecting to the new resize behavior of the Pidgin message window.

My use of the program is primarily for communication.  Whether I'm planning an event with a group of friends or participating in a role-play related to my online forum-based Steampunk roleplaying game, two lines is just much, much too small.  For those of us that prefer using complete sentences when communicating, two lines is maddening.  I have reverted to the previous version of Pidgin in the hopes that this issue will be resolved in future versions.

My preferences:

1. I would most like to see a return to the old behavior.  I am frequently resizing all the windows on my desktop as I handle different tasks.  One night I might have several message windows open side by side, on another I might have a single message window maximized for an important conversation.  Flexibility is key.

2. If this is not possible, it would be nice to, at the least, be able to define a larger minimum size for the input portion of the window.  Two lines feels extraordinarily constraining.  I would like to see a minimum of at LEAST 10-12 lines possible.

3. What I would not want, under any circumstances, would be a window that resized itself, growing as I typed.  That is about the only behavior I can think of that would be more annoying than the current two line restriction.  As I mentioned above, I will frequently have multiple chat windows tiled around my screen; having one adjust its own size would make it difficult to do this.  Additionally, it's counter-intuitive for Windows users.  Windows should not resize themselves. Plus, of course, the "jerkiness" that would necessarily result from the expansion of the window would make it hard to watch.

Thank you for the opportunity to put in my two cents.  If there is any more information I can give you, please let me know.

-kirax2

[Sascha Vogt]

Hi,

kirax2 wrote:
> 3. What I would not want, under any circumstances, would be a window that
> resized itself, growing as I typed.  That is about the only behavior I can
> think of that would be more annoying than the current two line restriction.
> As I mentioned above, I will frequently have multiple chat windows tiled
> around my screen; having one adjust its own size would make it difficult to
> do this.  Additionally, it's counter-intuitive for Windows users.  Windows
> should not resize themselves. Plus, of course, the "jerkiness" that would
> necessarily result from the expansion of the window would make it hard to
> watch.
The Pidgin devs have made clear, that such a thing will never happen. So
you don't need to worry about it. Auto-resizing will only be done
*within* a window (so the inner breakdown may change automatically), if
done at all.

Greetings
-Sascha-

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

[devil666]

pidgin 2.4.0 will be a better software if the resizing input field feature can be set as optional which user can decide whether its manual resizable in the preferences menu, now it makes me feel a bit odd to use when typing msgs with multiple lines.

Mark Scott-7 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.

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
[e-mail]

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

[TheUs]

One more vote for having the possibility to change the size of the edit box manually (dragging) and for the Pidgin to memorize the size between the sessions.

Anybody who thinks two lines are good idea should maybe try to write the whole programs or any normal texts (and not "LOL HAHAHA") inside of the two lines window. That's how people who are used to some bigger input field feel now.