Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #6232 > unrolled thread

Re: Visual Designers Don’t Scale

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Visual Designers Don’t Scale Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-01-19 07:14 +0000
    Re: Visual Designers Don’t Scale Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2016-01-19 19:08 +0000
      Re: Visual Designers Don’t Scale Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2016-01-19 19:10 +0000
        Re: Visual Designers Don’t Scale Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-01-19 22:10 +0000
          Re: Visual Designers Don't Scale Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-01-20 02:23 -0800
            Re: Visual Designers Don't Scale Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-01-20 16:15 +0000

#6232 — Re: Visual Designers Don’t Scale

On 19/01/16 04:38, Ramine wrote:
>
> Visual Designers Don’t Scale

Why do you think so? (URLs don't count.)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6234

On 2016-01-19, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 19/01/16 04:38, Ramine wrote:
>>
>> Visual Designers Don’t Scale
>
> Why do you think so? (URLs don't count.)

It has been my experience that most dialog boxes of visual tools
don't scale. If they are for Windows, written by Microsoft, that is.

"Damn it, get wider, so I can see the full path! Argh ..."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6235

On 2016-01-19, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2016-01-19, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/01/16 04:38, Ramine wrote:
>>>
>>> Visual Designers Don’t Scale
>>
>> Why do you think so? (URLs don't count.)
>
> It has been my experience that most dialog boxes of visual tools
> don't scale. If they are for Windows, written by Microsoft, that is.
>
> "Damn it, get wider, so I can see the full path! Argh ..."

Wait, that's "resize", not "scale", pardon me.

Scale means resize, and the fonts and perhaps other UI elements like
buggons and icons get bigger. That's seen even less often in visual
development tools, so there is a point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6236

On 19/01/16 19:10, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2016-01-19, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-01-19, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 19/01/16 04:38, Ramine wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Visual Designers Don’t Scale
>>>
>>> Why do you think so? (URLs don't count.)
>>
>> It has been my experience that most dialog boxes of visual tools
>> don't scale. If they are for Windows, written by Microsoft, that is.
>>
>> "Damn it, get wider, so I can see the full path! Argh ..."
>
> Wait, that's "resize", not "scale", pardon me.
>
> Scale means resize, and the fonts and perhaps other UI elements like
> buggons and icons get bigger. That's seen even less often in visual
> development tools, so there is a point.


Of course, such problems can be fixed if the motivation is there. But in 
any case I'm not saying he doesn't have a point. I'm saying he hasn't 
justified his point with reasoning. (I don't consider drive-by URLs to 
count as reasoning.)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6237 — Re: Visual Designers Don't Scale

On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 00:10:27 UTC+2, Richard Heathfield  wrote:
> On 19/01/16 19:10, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > On 2016-01-19, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
> >> On 2016-01-19, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> On 19/01/16 04:38, Ramine wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Visual Designers Don't Scale
> >>>
> >>> Why do you think so? (URLs don't count.)
> >>
> >> It has been my experience that most dialog boxes of visual tools
> >> don't scale. If they are for Windows, written by Microsoft, that is.
> >>
> >> "Damn it, get wider, so I can see the full path! Argh ..."
> >
> > Wait, that's "resize", not "scale", pardon me.
> >
> > Scale means resize, and the fonts and perhaps other UI elements like
> > buggons and icons get bigger. That's seen even less often in visual
> > development tools, so there is a point.
> 
> 
> Of course, such problems can be fixed if the motivation is there. But in 
> any case I'm not saying he doesn't have a point. I'm saying he hasn't 
> justified his point with reasoning. (I don't consider drive-by URLs to 
> count as reasoning.)

Usually he posts lot of threads that repair some typo in previous thread
when he starts to reason. Diagrams with lot of vertices and edges
are hard to understand and to work with indeed. It is not news for anyone
who has seen such thing ... so are you sure we need lot of threads about
it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6238 — Re: Visual Designers Don't Scale

On 20/01/16 10:23, Öö Tiib wrote:

<snip>

> Diagrams with lot of vertices and edges
> are hard to understand and to work with indeed. It is not news for anyone
> who has seen such thing ... so are you sure we need lot of threads about
> it?

I don't mind either way. If he, or anyone, wants to talk about scaling 
issues in visual design tools, why not? It's not as if comp.programming 
is over-burdened with traffic. But if we're going to talk about it here, 
let's talk about it *here*, rather than conduct argument-by-Web-link.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web