[TC11.50b2] Visual glitches

[ghisler(Author)]

In beta 5, there should no longer be any overlaying group boxes in Configuration - Options - Packer at any resolution, please try it!

[petermad]

31.10.24 Fixed: Adjust height of groupboxes in Configuration - Options - Packer if they overlap after scaling the dialog box (32/64)

Confirmed fixed in TC 11.50b5

Tested under Windows 7 with 96 and 120 dpi TC-scaling.

[AntonyD]

Ok, those glitches related to groupboxes are gone, indeed.
But what about this?

Also to the same problem I would refer to the state of the font name output in their settings dialog for Lister
https://i.ibb.co/bLLZr1B/2024-10-31-224221.png
There is no logic to display all the font styles/characteristics on this button in a "special" format.
ALL of them will be perfectly visible when the user clicks on it and falls into the detailed settings of this font.
It is MUCH MORE correct and useful to display ONLY one font name! BUT at the same time display in the same font!

And all the characteristics can be displayed in a tooltip that could appear when the mouse cursor approaches the button.

And the problem that remains is the fact that for the default state of the adjacent checkboxes - on the buttons
at this moment there is NO information AT ALL about the font that now seems to be selected by default.
ONLY "..." I can see.
And even if I disable any of the checkboxes, nothing will change on the button's label! The same "..."!!!
That is, it feels like the checkmark is NOT responsible for ANYTHING here - on the right side!

And to this:
https://i.ibb.co/yhLnhv4/2024-11-07-112654.png
Why this combobox is sooooo wide? For which reasons there is so many empty space marked with red rectangle?
And why it's so hard to add a space between the right border and the label '/4'? Marked by red arrow.

[petermad]

2AntonyD
I agree that a space before /4 on your screenshot https://i.ibb.co/yhLnhv4/2024-11-07-112654.png would look nicer.

[AntonyD]

2petermad
Thank you very much for your words of support!

+What do you think about my thoughts on labels for buttons with fonts from the quote just above?
Does this set of not very clear symbols after the file name have at least some logic there?

Well, it is clear that some clearer information should be displayed only in the tooltips to the buttons themselves.
There is more space there and the tooltip itself can be displayed in THIS font - and the user will immediately understand:
what it would look like.

[ghisler(Author)]

There is no logic to display all the font styles/characteristics on this button in a "special" format.

I prefer not to change that, sorry. For most fonts the space is sufficient to show all information.

I agree that a space before /4 on your screenshot https://i.ibb.co/yhLnhv4/2024-11-07-112654.png would look nicer.

I already made it a bit smaller than in beta 1, how much more do I need to reduce it?

[petermad]

2AntonyD

Does this set of not very clear symbols after the file name have at least some logic there?

Well since TC 11.05b5 it does, because you can see whether or not you have selected to use OEM/DOS charset here (value 255 after the size)


2ghisler(Author)

I already made it a bit smaller than in beta 1, how much more do I need to reduce it?

To me it is not really about the width of the combobox it is about the space between the box and the text to the right of it. Maybe change it something like this: https://tcmd.madsenworld.dk/cputreads.png

[MaxX]

2petermad
Agree. I has wrote the same earlier
viewtopic.php?p=462371#p462371

[AntonyD]

2ghisler(Author)
2petermad
Probably, in translation, my words get a different meaning. I apologize for this.
BUT once again - What is the point of having these numbers, dashes, commas and other elements of unreadable information?
What if there are full-fledged words/phrases/states/correct names behind all of them?
No one will ever understand on their own WHAT -15, w30, 255 means!!! These are too technically-defined terms!
Once again - if you want to provide "this" information to the user - COMPLETELY translate it into a HUMAN-readable format!
BUT in theory, it is not needed at all - because in any case, for any change, the user needs to ENTER the font settings dialog!
There is NO operation with this dialog, with this text in the button, for which it would be necessary and sufficient just to see
this abracadabra!

2ghisler(Author)

how much more do I need to reduce it?

It seemed to me that the very fact of the presence of the area marked with a red rectangle just SCREAMS that
it is LOGICAL to remove this entire place. Are you sure you were looking at the attached picture?
ALL of the marked area is superfluous there. Don't you see it? https://i.ibb.co/yhLnhv4/2024-11-07-112654.png
Or do you think that a processor with 1176564 threads could appear?
And by the way, why is the term "threads" used when you are talking about the "cores" of the CPU? inside the HELP.

+What about the gap that our colleague petermad agrees on as well? https://tcmd.madsenworld.dk/cputreads.png

What about this part of my post:

And the problem that remains is the fact that for the default state of the adjacent checkboxes - on the buttons
at this moment there is NO information AT ALL about the font that now seems to be selected by default.
ONLY "..." I can see.
And even if I disable any of the checkboxes, nothing will change on the button's label! The same "..."!!!
That is, it feels like the checkmark is NOT responsible for ANYTHING here - on the right side!

Is there really no opinion on this?

I can even add to the above that I do not understand the logic at all when there is a "default" checkbox available for change and a button
next to "...". These are mutually exclusive components! But for some reason, they are available for change right now and both at once!
The checkbox can be removed - and ONLY THEN should access to the button appear, with which you can specify a DIFFERENT font.

[Dalai]

And by the way, why is the term "threads" used when you are talking about the "cores" of the CPU? inside the HELP.

The help should be changed to use the term "threads" because with SMT each core can have multiple threads. OTOH it's not wrong to use the term "cores" in this context. When an application uses multiple threads the OS scheduler automatically moves them to the appropriate cores. So maybe the help should use both terms.

[ghisler(Author)]

To me it is not really about the width of the combobox it is about the space between the box and the text to the right of it.

I need the extra space for those rare users with AMD threadripper 3990X with 64 cores and 128 threads...

ALL of the marked area is superfluous there. Don't you see it?

No it's not! If I reduce the width to that of a 2 digit number, it would disappear behind the dropdown button.
But I can make it a bit smaller.

[AntonyD]

2ghisler(Author)

I need the extra space for those rare users with AMD threadripper 3990X with 64 cores and 128 threads...

Your example: just added only ONE single character in addition to the standard usual two (in which you have settled on the value of 32 so far)!!!
And in the picture I pointed out to you a HUGE field of empty space that can never be occupied!
Even if you fantasize about generations of processors from 2030!

it would disappear behind the dropdown button.

Instead of a dozen words, it's better to show a picture of how it looks in the "cropped?" version on your interface prototype.
After all, you can just change this size on the fly in the IDE resource editor and show HOW it will look? Isn't it?

And why do you so habitually ignore all the other statements and thoughts of those writing here?
In my post there was NOT ONLY ONE question/suggestion to which I should have received a response.
And here I am again forced to repeat ALL this in a full:

BUT once again - What is the point of having these numbers, dashes, commas and other elements of unreadable information?
What if there are full-fledged words/phrases/states/correct names behind all of them?
No one will ever understand on their own WHAT -15, w30, 255 means!!! These are too technically-defined terms!
Once again - if you want to provide "this" information to the user - COMPLETELY translate it into a HUMAN-readable format!
BUT in theory, it is not needed at all - because in any case, for any change, the user needs to ENTER the font settings dialog!
There is NO operation with this dialog, with this text in the button, for which it would be necessary and sufficient just to see
this abracadabra!

+What about the gap that our colleague petermad agrees on as well? https://tcmd.madsenworld.dk/cputreads.png

What about this part of my post:

And the problem that remains is the fact that for the default state of the adjacent checkboxes - on the buttons
at this moment there is NO information AT ALL about the font that now seems to be selected by default.
ONLY "..." I can see.
And even if I disable any of the checkboxes, nothing will change on the button's label! The same "..."!!!
That is, it feels like the checkmark is NOT responsible for ANYTHING here - on the right side!

Is there really no opinion on this?

I can even add to the above that I do not understand the logic at all when there is a "default" checkbox available for change and a button
next to "...". These are mutually exclusive components! But for some reason, they are available for change right now and both at once!
The checkbox can be removed - and ONLY THEN should access to the button appear, with which you can specify a DIFFERENT font.

[petermad]

2ghisler(Author)

I need the extra space for those rare users with AMD threadripper 3990X with 64 cores and 128 threads...

There is still room for some extra space: https://tcmd.madsenworld.dk/cputreads2.png - and if you then reduce the combobox a little, as you say you can, it would be perfect

[MaxX]

May I just add third option...
https://i.imgur.com/J6FlRzB.png
There's still enough space for 4 digits in both places.
I don't insist but show another pretty view.

[browny]

This is a mistake to use 1 as a digit in examples with variable width fonts; to account for maximum width it must be something like 9.