[Okular-devel] Re: [proposal] Inline note re-design

[Albert Astals Cid]

A Dilluns, 31 de gener de 2011, Raffaele Mancuso va escriure:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I think we should re-design the inline note tool. Here are my proposals:
> 
> 1) The annotation is not resized when the text is modified. This result in
> text get cut off from the annotation.
> 
>     Steps to reproduce:
>     1) Create an inline annotation
>     2) Write "aaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbccccccccdddddddddddddd" in only one
> line 3) Press ok
>     4) Right click on it, open "Pop-up note", go to the last 'd' and add
> "eeeeeeeeeffffffffffggggggggggg"
>     5) The newly added string is not visible
> 
> This also happen if you change the font to a bigger or smaller one. This
> events should force the annotation to be resized automatically.
> 
> 2) The size of the note should be saved both to okular internal xmls and to
> the xmls in the .okular file format
> 
> 3) The user has no way to resize it manually. The user should be able to
> click on a corner and move the mouse to resize the note. The note is filled
> with empty space if the new size is bigger. If the new size is smaller, the
> text get cut off, but it will come back if the note is resized another time
> and gets bigger (or back to its original size)
> 
> 4) It should be possible to edit the note without another window popping
> up. The note should be edited inline, without another window appearing. So
> the note should be itself like a text box. The mode to edit it should
> remain the same thought (right-click->open pop-up note) being both buttons
> of the mouse already taken (we don't want that the user wants to scroll a
> page and instead gets the note edited). But a new faster-mode should be
> added, like clicking on the annotation and press a key at the same time
> (the E key?). The latter is formulated considering that to edit the
> annotation the user need to reach the keyboard in any case.
> 
> I also think (1) and (2) are very urgent ones.
> 
> What do you think? Do you like my proposals? Do you have other ideas?

1) and 2) and 3) are obivious, i'm not so sure about 4)

Albert