Please change the 2.4.0 input field's resize behaviour

[Mark Scott]

Etan Reisner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 06:57:52PM +0000, Mark Scott wrote:
> <snip>

>>> Do you really regularly send IMs that are longer than four full lines?
>> Yes, very often.  I've got several years of logs I can analyze if you'd
>> like hard stats.

> If you could analyze your logs and
> determine what in fact your average message length (in lines) is and what
> your 'routine' maximum length is, I would find that incredibly interesting
> to know, and quite possibly very valuable (assuming your usage mirrors
> others with similar patterns).

OK, I'll cobble a script together and analyze them.  It'll have to wait 
until this evening.

>> I never found myself constantly resizing anything.  Hardly ever, in
>> fact.  I guess that suggests 10 to 12 lines is, for me, enough to
>> give sufficient context to whatever I'm currently typing.

> I'm assuming given these statements that you in fact left your input area
> at 12 lines at all times and did not shrink it after your large messages.

Yes, you're right - I almost never resize the input area after setting 
its initial height (and I must say I'm not even concious of doing that).

> Given your window size and your acceptance of a large input area even for
> messages which don't require it you don't see any of the benefits, but
> that doesn't mean they don't exist. The benefits are exactly for people
> for whom the normal two lines is sufficient greater than 90% of the time,
> but who for some part of the rest of the time need a larger input area to
> fit their message. The auto-resizing allows them to not have wasted space
> for the majority of their messages but to cleanly and automatically size
> up to accomodate double length messages, which returning immediately to
> the default size upon message sending.
> 
> Do you not see the benefit to that (assuming the usage model I laid out)?

Yes, I accept this.  I'm complaining from a purely personal point of 
view (since I can't reasonably complain on behalf of anyone else).  I 
guess I'm having a hard time being told my usage model is unusual :-S

> It is beginning to appear to me that there may very well be a usage case,
> like yours, for which the auto-resizing is just not a viable option. I'm
> assuming even if the widget sized itself to 12 lines on demand you
> wouldn't like the size changing. If that is in fact the case I'm not sure
> what option there really is other than to allow for disabling the
> auto-resizing entirely and switching back to manual resizing. But I
> haven't quite gotten there yet.

Sorry, but I found the auto-resizing very annoying.  It's just not the 
way I expect (or want) software to behave.  The previous implementation 
was perfect IMO.

But I'm pragmatic - if most of your users prefer the new implementation 
and catering for everyone is technically difficult or requires ugly 
hacks (which other posts in this thread referring to Gtk widgets 
indicate) then I can understand and accept any reluctance to revert the 
change or to provide a user preference to control behaviour.

-- 
Mark Scott
mark at codebrewer.com