Sometime during the 4.4 development cycle, the function wizard dialog increased from a non-resizable size of 752x513 to its resizable minimal size of 716x565. Both heights seem way to large for the dialog contents and the current minimum size is larger than any other dialog in LO and stretches from the standard toolbar to the sheet bar on my 1366x768 laptop screen.
I believe the minimum height can be ~435.
(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #0)
> I believe the minimum height can be ~435.
Agree with this value, more or less. We decided to make dialogs non-resizable, and actually there is no reason to scale the large white-space in this dialog.
Setting with/height is an easyhack, no need to dig into it.
I don't consider this to be a bug that needs fixing, not in the form as specified here.
Double-click on any function that needs more than 2 arguments (some financial functions work well in this regard, e.g. AMORDEGRC needs 7 arguments) -- suddenly the white space on the right is filled with relevant content and you'll have hard time fitting it into the size proposed.
So you'd end up forcing users that want to use those function to make 1 extra step and resize the dialog.
There *are* issues the function wizard e.g. when resized, window size is not remembered, or the box with text entries for function arguments doesn't expand etc. But none of those issues happens to be "dialog is too large"
Created attachment 130763 [details]
Screenshot from master
Maybe we talk about different version, need to check again as it looks acceptable on Windows (while AMORDEGRC still has a lot of free space). But the resizable flag violates our guidelines. Dialogs must not be resizable.
Build ID: fa2eb4b43fc872c171129d477cfabe9fa29d78ce
CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.1; UI Render: default;
TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2017-01-18_01:17:32
Locale: de-DE (de_DE); Calc: group
> Maybe we talk about different version, need to check again as it looks
> acceptable on Windows (while AMORDEGRC still has a lot of free space). But
> the resizable flag violates our guidelines. Dialogs must not be resizable.
And now actually do *double-click* on the list item -- you'll see a scrollable box with at least 4 new text entries appearing to the right of the function list
Given the presence of text entries, or editable fields in general, it does make some sense for the dialog to be resizable and it's even in accordance with UX guidelines
(In reply to Katarina Behrens (CIB) from comment #4)
> And now actually do *double-click* on the list item ...
> Given the presence of text entries, or editable fields in general, it does
> make some sense for the dialog to be resizable and it's even in accordance
> with UX guidelines
Accepted. I'd still make it non-resizable since the input fields are not anchored. Even better if we'd make all dialogs resizable and take care about the proper alignment (personal opinion).
Created attachment 130849 [details]
function wizard wasted space
Even with double-clicking on a function, there is alot of wasted space in the dialog, which isnt there in earlier releases.
Also most functions take 1, 2 or 3 arguments, but we allocate a minimum of 4 rows for arguments, and stretching the height of the dialog doesnt show more arguments, so where is the benefit of the resizing.
(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #6)
> Created attachment 130849 [details]
> function wizard wasted space
Note that space of the upper red box may be used by function parameter descriptions, which can be much longer than in the screenshot example, specifically when translated, eg. to Finnish..
For example take a look at the POISSON function the third Cumulative parameter.
The space of the lower red box indeed seems to be unused (or I didn't find what for).
Benefit of resizing can be overview of the Structure page for more complicated formula expressions. Would be nice though if the width of that left pane could also be resized..
(In reply to Eike Rathke from comment #7)
> Would be nice though if the width of that
> left pane could also be resized..
For which bug 101876 exists already.
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding **
To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year.
There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present.
If you have time, please do the following:
Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/
If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.
If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.
Please DO NOT
Update the version field
Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not
appropriate in this case)
If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so:
1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/
2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo';
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword
Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa
Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!
looking at the comments, and noticing the dialog fits my 1366x768 screen, let's close this as NotABug