Clone graphic does not respect dimensions

Richard Gaskin ambassador at
Thu Dec 1 13:38:44 EST 2016

Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:

 > At 7:39 AM -0800 12/1/2016, Richard Gaskin wrote:
 >>BNig 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 
possible inconvenience.

I'd opt for a 4px threshold.

  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  Ambassador at      

More information about the use-livecode mailing list