[Users] Scary composer feature: disappearing address fields
cjk at teamcharliesangels.com
Thu Jan 28 19:45:03 CET 2016
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:36:51 +0100
wwp <subscript at free.fr> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:30:38 -0700 Charlie Kravetz <cjk at teamcharliesangels.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:36:34 +0100
>> Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:28:05 +0100, help123 at dobrynin.us wrote:
>> >>And, indeed, that's what Pierre now confirms.
>> >We are humans, so we sometimes miss the forest for the trees. Anyway,
>> >there's no need to change the design in an unusual way. Keeping the
>> >design in the most common way, is the best solution.
>> Instead of designing for the smallest possible device, designing for
>> usability would work. The area used to be 5 lines, now it defaults to
>> two. Taking it back to 5 lines would eliminate most of these issues.
>> - --
>> Charlie Kravetz
>> Linux Registered User Number 425914
>> Never let anyone steal your DREAM. [http://keepingdreams.com]
>The ruler still exist to make more room.
>And it's not really 2 in fact, it's N+1, where N is the necessary
>sufficient number of recipient header(s) following the context (1 when
>composing, 1 or more when replying, etc.). +1 being for a new recipient
Whatever you choose to call it, it causes many false bug reports and
issues for users. Expanding it to "If >= 5 then N+1 else 5" would help
Linux Registered User Number 425914
Never let anyone steal your DREAM. [http://keepingdreams.com]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Users