« Return to Thread: Please change the 2.4.0 input field's resize behaviour
Re: Please change the 2.4.0 input field's resize behaviour
by Mark Scott-7
::
Rate this Message:
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
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
« Return to Thread: Please change the 2.4.0 input field's resize behaviour
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
