Content-Type: |
multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93405b9d1211d04db1d6a65 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:01:39 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
If you want to ensure that proportions are maintained (which may not be a
bad idea), then 1 is most certainly the way to go.
2 doesn't seem to make much sense, why not just have a single box that lets
you just resize it like any other window in any modern OS?
3 appears to be the cause of the change request, so obviously that's not an
option unless a majority of people really want to keep it the way it is?
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I see three basic options:
>
> 1. Add ONE little checkbox called "Fix Width" (or whatever). If ON, then
> the width of the graph is fixed to the width of the window. The height of
> the graph changes as appropriate to maintain the stated proportion. [note:
> doing Height rather than Width doesn't make a lot of sense in most use
> cases]
>
> 2. Add TWO little checkboxes called "Fix Width" and "Fix Height" (or
> whatever). If ON, then the width and/or height of the graph is fixed to
> the width and/or height of the window.
>
> 3. Leave things as they are.
>
> It seems to me that #1 is the right way to do it (other than #3 of
> course). Anyone have any opinions?
>
> Sean
>
|
|
|