 |
|
|
When the window starts to load, simply click on the Maximize Window icon (centered between the "_" for minimizing and the "x" for closing) in the window's upper-right hand corner.
----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, a good point. There is a small box but only half of the width of the grey area, and half the total height. You could make it much bigger. But it could be to do with the fact that I have a large monitor; it may be a consistant width; primarily designed for 640x480 resolutions. Any larger and it may produce errors. Actually, let me check:
yes, That is why. It is a consistant size so it is compatible with all resolutions. As mine is double the res of 640x480, the box is half the relative size. Does that answer the question?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ohhhhh ok sorry for the confusion...
I am running 1024x768 resolution and feel no such limitiation with the window I have to type in. As a matter of fact, I took a screenshot of the box I used to type in this reply, cut it out and then looked at its size... it's 450x200, not including the bar for the arrow on the right-hand size.
----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS
|
|
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Paul - it's measured in rows and columns, so the actual screen resolution will vary with the browser's font size settings, and the units to pixel conversion for each user's monitor and resolution mode.
Depending on browser settings, it could blow up if it was made larger, but only for IE/Netscape 3 users at 640/480.
It could be fixed, but it would be a major maintenance and implementation pain in the ass, since it's an HTML Textarea tag. You'd have to make two or more versions of the HTML page code. Then the user would have to put screen resolution and browser info into a modified preferences section, for inclusion in the cookie, then you'd have to use PERL or Javascript to pick which version of the HTML code to load for that particular user.
Another way would be to have the user do a selection at the site front end each session, a la frames-no frames. Either way, it's a lot of work for a fairly minor benefit.
------------------
Apolyton OT's Official "Liberal Right Winger"(tm) - Thanks to Franklin and Nimrod for giving me the political label I've lacked all this time.
"Trust is good. Control is better. - Feliks Dzherzhinski
"You can get a lot further in life with a kind word and a gun, than a kind word alone. - Al Capone
"When one says a thing is agreeable in principal, it means one hasn't the slightest intent of carrying it out in practice." - Otto von Bismarck
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MichaeltheGreat (edited June 18, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kumiorava
|
|
Wouldn't this take care of the problem:
In the source of the reply page change the following line
Edit: Hell, I don't know what happened to the code fields. I'll try to repost with html off...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited June 20, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kumiorava
|
|
Or the admins can just change the COLS value of the "ReplyMessage" textarea to something like 90. The current value is 45, so 90 would make the input space twice as wide, making the typed text look more like what it looks like when posted while giving plenty of room for things like long URL's. I hate it when the input field wraps URL's.
The problem is, would it be practical for people with low resolutions and small monitors? I don't suffer from this disadvantage, but I know it would be a pain to need to scroll sideways while typing in your reply...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-06-2000 18:59
|