Clone graphic does not respect dimensions
ambassador at fourthworld.com
Thu Dec 1 19:38:44 CET 2016
Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:
> At 7:39 AM -0800 12/1/2016, Richard Gaskin 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
I'd opt for a 4px threshold.
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
More information about the use-livecode