Overwrite dialog path truncating improvement

[Saran]

Current behavior is shown in the picture:

http://i.imgur.com/EcZUOTe.png

As explained there, the main problem is that the only part of the path (based on which the user can make a decision if the right source and target were used for the operation) is truncated and the parts of the path that are the same are actually shown. This leaves the user to have to check both of the tooltips for full paths to be certain.

A good example (how Sublime Text handles the very same files) is an approach TC could possibly also adopt to make users life easier in such situations...

Thanks in advance!

[Hacker]

Hello Saran,
How does one know which part of the path is important?

Roman

[Lefteous]

How does one know which part of the path is important?

When there are actually just two paths to compare I guess the path part matters that differs.

In my opinion the dialog width needs to be increased to make it more likely to avoid truncations. Another idea to improve the dialog would be to highlight the differences in the path.

[Dalai]

Showing the path in a (read-only) edit field instead of the current label would be another option, so the user can do anything one can do with an edit field (move the cursor around in there, copy (parts of) the path and so on).

Adding the option to adjust the dialog's width would also work, but I can imagine that it might not be good for some of the dialog's controls.

This might be used in conjunction with some highlighting of the differences.

Regards
Dalai

[Hacker]

Lefteous,

When there are actually just two paths to compare I guess the path part matters that differs.

What if several parts differ?

Roman

[MVV]

Perhaps first difference is the major one, I think... but synchronous truncation requires much more effort than current one.

[Lefteous]

What if several parts differ?

Same story.

[Hacker]

Lefteous,

Same story.

c:\...\diff_1\...\diff_2\...\diff_3\...\file.txt
c:\...\diff_a\...\diff_b\...\diff_c\...\file.txt


Roman

[Lefteous]

Could you elaborate, please?