On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 00:08 +0100, drago01 wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's funny you should say that. > > > > We've had 800x600 as the expected minimum for _years_. Like, since it > > was called Red Hat Linux. It's not even a particularly egregious > > assumption, that's the fallback resolution for Windows 2k and later, and > > it's the Gnome HIG minimum design size. > > > > That's why anaconda has a fixed-size UI, and why that fixed size happens > > to be 800x600. > > Well minimum is fine; but it is also the maximum which is rather > sucks, it shouldn't be hardcoded to be always 800x600 even on a > 1980x1200 screen... On a 2560x1600 screen, mousing all the way from the text entry fields in the top left to the buttons in the bottom right is something of a chore. 1920x1200 isn't much better. Arbitrarily scalable UIs are really really hard. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
