You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Having written the previous two tickets, issue #1176 and issue #1177, I'd like to propose one more idea:
What about changing the unit of size for width and height to "%" (percentage) in general, instead of "dp" (which many users might not be able to make sense of anyway)?
For the width there is a natural 100% value defined, and everything narrower could then be shown in % as well (maybe again with a defined raster, e.g. in 5 % steps, see related issue #1176).
And for the height, the 100 % value could represent the useful minimum height required in order to not cut any contents of the widget. I have to admit though that I don't know whether there's a good way at all to determine such a minimum height?
Each widget might behave differently – I've seen ones just scale down (but still get illegible of course when too tiny), and I've seen ones that simply start clipping their content once their height falls below a certain minimum. Maybe some kind of heuristic could be used here in case there's no system supported method of querying a widget's sensible minimum height?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Having written the previous two tickets, issue #1176 and issue #1177, I'd like to propose one more idea:
What about changing the unit of size for width and height to "%" (percentage) in general, instead of "dp" (which many users might not be able to make sense of anyway)?
For the width there is a natural 100% value defined, and everything narrower could then be shown in % as well (maybe again with a defined raster, e.g. in 5 % steps, see related issue #1176).
And for the height, the 100 % value could represent the useful minimum height required in order to not cut any contents of the widget. I have to admit though that I don't know whether there's a good way at all to determine such a minimum height?
Each widget might behave differently – I've seen ones just scale down (but still get illegible of course when too tiny), and I've seen ones that simply start clipping their content once their height falls below a certain minimum. Maybe some kind of heuristic could be used here in case there's no system supported method of querying a widget's sensible minimum height?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: