[Geany] "Replace All" button order

[Gordon Wrigley]

Assuming we don't get rid of it entirely could we make the close
option persistent as well?

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:12:36 -0500, "Daniel Richard G."
> <skunk at iSKUNK.ORG> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2009 Jan 20 12:44:52 +0000, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>>> >
>>> > But the dialog doesn't grow in height when the arrow is
>>> > opened---the widgets just get squeezed a little tighter vertically.
>>>
>>> It does the first time.
>>
>>Okay, I see what you mean. Still, it's only by a little bit....
>>
>>> > A persistent arrow could work, too, but... isn't that making
>>> > things more complicated than they need to be? It simplifies the
>>> > dialog visually when the user doesn't want to see the replace-all
>>> > functionality, but then you still have that element of UI
>>> > modality, and now a new config variable to
>>>
>>> Not sure why that's a problem (maybe my ignorance though ;-))
>>
>>Just that, as the buttons are not a fixed part of the dialog, you
>>can't always count on them being there, ready to click---not without
>>the extra overhead of expanding the arrow. It's a small nicety to know
>
> With Nick's suggestion to make the arrow state persistent, you only
> have to open the expander once, then it will 'stay' open as long as you
> won't delete your config.
>
>
>>> > keep track of it. Not to mention, the opened arrow/label doesn't
>>> > associate itself with the buttons very well if the act of having
>>> > opened it is not in recent memory. (In other words, if you see the
>>> > dialog for the first time with the arrow already opened, the arrow
>>> > label doesn't do a good job of actually labeling the set of
>>> > buttons.)
>>>
>>> We could add a 'Replace all in:' label as well, maybe change the
>>> close dialog option to work for all buttons, not just replace all.
>>
>>But that would change the basic behavior of the dialog, where it stays
>>around until explicitly told otherwise (via the Close button or the
>>checkbox). The Find dialog behaves this way, too, so there would be a
>>consistency issue.
>
> Yes, I also wouldn't like to change the close dialog option. It's
> pretty fine as it is, IMO.
>
>
>>> I don't mind if we remove the expander.
>>
>>I'm all for that ^_^
>
> Is a persistent expander really that bad?
> It would be pretty much like without it, you still see it but once
> opened (and not closed again) it will always be open, so it's more or
> less the same as when the expander was a frame. Plus we have the
> benefit that users who really don't want to see/use the replace all
> options, simply won't see it and so have a smaller dialog (as I
> mentioned before, there are Netbook users out there :D).
>
>
> Just for the records:
> the original topic, the button order, has been changed by Nick today.
>
> Regards,
> Enrico
>
> --
> Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geany mailing list
> Geany at uvena.de
> http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
>
>