Review Request 110061: Two lines high initial size for the input field

Wed Apr 17 10:31:17 UTC 2013

> On April 17, 2013, 9:12 a.m., Alin M Elena wrote:
> > lib/chat-text-edit.cpp, line 81
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110061/diff/1/?file=139155#file139155line81>
> >
> >     do you plan to make this two configurable? allow the user to set how many lines wants?
> >     also should not you have two linespacings?
> >
> 
> Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
>     Please do _not_ make this configurable. Starting with two lines makes sense to make it clear ot users that this is a multi-line edit box, but we do not need a user-configurable value because we use an auto-expanding box. I know that Pidgin was forked over this issue, but I think users will adjust to auto-expanding boxes over time.
> 
> Martin Klapetek wrote:
>     I don't think so, the logic is "twice the size of the font + the space between lines", which seems ok. Also I don't want to see this configurable. We can't provide configuration options for every single piece of our UIs.
> 
> Róbert Szókovács wrote:
>     I wanted to give exactly these answers, thanks!
> 
> Alin M Elena wrote:
>     Thomas and how having it configurable prevents the auto-expanding?
>     Martin... of course but remember the debate we had about 2 lines vs 1 line and how people argued for one or another... giving them the chance to configure how many lines want makes sense... 
>     the two line spaces... one in between the two lines and another one between the lower line and border... anyhow this is a detail we can change later if feels bad... 
>     I will say ship it now and keep the discussion open on configuration.
> 
> Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
>     Making it configurable of course does not prevent auto-expansion, but I think that auto-expansion makes configurability of default height unnecessary.
>     Yes, people debate about a whole lot of things, but most of the time it's just that they want to keep things like they are personally used to. Neither a one-line default nor a two-line default are going to cause any real trouble for anyone, the two-line default just has the slight advantage mentioned above.
>     Yes, some people will complain, but if someone quits using KTp over an extra line in the edit box, that user wasn't really convinced of KTp anyway. I am for giving the option to turn _features_ which are useful to some users but annoying to others on and off, but this is not a feature, this is a little cosmetic detail. And if we make every little cosmetic detail configurable (because there are always people vocally defending both ways), we end up with KDE3-style config dialogs.
> 
> Alin M Elena wrote:
>     Personally I am not for 1 or 2 lines... I have just seen the issue debated about...
>     I will add the config option myself once this is committed and we shall let the user decide. If one person wasted his time to ask for 2 lines and argue why is good and another for 1 line and iirc no definitive arguments were given at the time to drop one or another, I think the option is a good candidate for a config entry... Why shall devs decide on the cosmetic the user wants? 
>     Arguing against the config I see it unconvincing... as it does not increase the complexity of the code and gives freedom to the user to choose -- I hope K input in our name still stands for that. Plus I offered myself to do the job.
> 
> Martin Klapetek wrote:
>     "Why shall devs decide on the cosmetic the user wants?"
>     
>     Why the user should decide? You know there are gazillions of styles of everything and each individual likes something different ;) Now if we have say 20,000 users and each likes something different, which of those users that "want different cosmetics" we'll choose? We are the developers. We are educated in this matter. We simply know better (granted, not always). We should decide because it's our product after all.
>     
>     "gives freedom to the user to choose"
>     
>     Users do not know what they want for most of times. By making a choice for them, we're making their life easier. (Btw. here's an awesome TED's talk about the paradox of choice - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM - too many choices make people unhappy).

Note this patch matches up with the last comments on bugzilla on https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=298501 it is not just a random proposal.

We should be discussing what patches we are going to make on bugzilla, and use reviewboard comments to discuss the code itself.

- David

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110061/#review31196
-----------------------------------------------------------

On April 17, 2013, 9:02 a.m., Róbert Szókovács wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110061/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 17, 2013, 9:02 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Telepathy.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This patch makes the input field's minimal size to lines high.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   lib/chat-text-edit.cpp 20055c9 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110061/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Róbert Szókovács
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-telepathy/attachments/20130417/b2c7c7c3/attachment.html>