Clone graphic does not respect dimensions
Richard Gaskin
ambassador at fourthworld.com
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 FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
More information about the use-livecode
mailing list