openmw.org

sirherrbatka wrote:We can't make it work for both large and small sizes. To demonstrate the problem:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/289 ... ranu20.png

I am sorry, but I can not follow. What this screenshot shows is the file icon, right? Looks perfectly fine to me.

If so I will just push it on the github. What resolution do we actually need? 256x256 for startup screen, right?

That might work. I can't give you any fixed numbers, because there aren't any. The size of the buttons depends on the size of the startup window, which in turn depends on other factors, mainly the size of the text below the buttons. For example a localisation with longer text will result in larger buttons.

Please remember to send me a pull request to master, once you have all 4 icons (3 big buttons and the small one).

The size of the buttons depends on the size of the startup window, which in turn depends on other factors, mainly the size of the text below the buttons. For example a localisation with longer text will result in larger buttons.

This does not sound good to me.

I belive that we should keep the fixed size, no matter what. Buttons changing size because of things unrelated to the application directly are just confusing.

We could perhaps go for vertical (list) aligment instead of horizontal one. That could be my personal preference but vertical lists seems to be a lot more natural for everyone, just because we are still Gutenberg civilization and printed text loves lists, and hates long lines. Actually I think that it maybe something more than just a habit but well…

I can render any size i want to. This is a vector graphics. For now I will stick to 256 and 32 icons.

I belive that we should keep the fixed size, no matter what. Buttons changing size because of things unrelated to the application directly are just confusing.

I disagree. It has always and will always be my position that fixed size layouts are evil. A layout must be able to adjust to certain changes (localisation, different font).

In this particular case the window is build as 3 separate columns, each with a button and a caption below it. The button is supposed to be as big as possible (consume all available space), since it is the main element of the window. Therefore, if the columns get wider because of longer text, the buttons also need to become bigger.

We don't agree about this, but it is not that important.

Pull request sended.

So ...
Opinions? Does this work or not?

Regarding the order, I like the linear progression of New Game, New Add-on, Edit Add-on. However, since most users of this software will speak a language that's read from left to right, would it make sense to reorder the buttons based on most used to the left, least used to the right? So Edit A Content File, Create A New Addon, and then Create A New Game?

My thinking is that the eye would naturally want to start to the left, and so that makes the most intelligent place to put the most often used button, which I assume will be the edit button.

Edit: I like the icons and general layout. Is there a possibility that you can enable Enter and Spacebar to automatically select Edit A Content File?

/me still thinks that vertical layout is more natural.

We had it from left-to-right originally, but someone said he preferred it the other way around and no one else spoke up about it, so I changed it. Feel free to discuss it further (would only take a minute to change it back, if there is a consent).

The return key does work and you can also use the cursor keys to navigate through the buttons.

Vertical arrangement does not work at all for me. Horizontal looks just more natural, especially when you are on a wide screen.