Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Dec 2009 19:52 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces For as long as I can remember, I've been having issues with scrolling in Windows and its applications. When scrolling via dragging the scroll blob, it seemed as if Windows had the annoying habit of randomly resetting your scroll blob to its starting position, which irritated me to no end. It took me a while to figure out, but I finally know when this behaviour occurs - now I just need to know: why?!
Thread beginning with comment 398893
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Darak
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 10th Dec 2009 20:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by Darak"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm not going to argue this one, as it was clearly tongue-in-cheek and I know I'm pretty much alone on it anyway - but the problem I have with the scroll-one-page solution is that you end up with a proportional UI element (the blob) inside a non-proportional element (the bar). With jump-to-here, both are proportional, which makes more sense to me (and only me, probably).

By extension, you could also make the blob non-proportional, and have it have a fixed size, but this takes valuable information away.

Edited 2009-12-10 20:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Darak
by big_gie on Thu 10th Dec 2009 20:41 in reply to "RE: Comment by Darak"
big_gie Member since:
2006-01-04

the problem I have with the scroll-one-page solution is that you end up with a proportional UI element (the blob) inside a non-proportional element (the bar). With jump-to-here, both are proportional, which makes more sense to me (and only me, probably).

I always questioned myself as why the default behaviour was a single "page up/down" instead of the "jump here" I think would be more intuitive. I guess I'm not alone anymore! ;)

On another note, why don't you have your window maximized (at least vertically)? You probably wouldn't have the problem of the top/bottom buffers to small if the window was maximized. Was it only to show the behaviour?
I've never understood why people don't use 100% of their screen estate... you paid for that big screen, use it! Or even worse, on smaller screen (eg. netbook) the space is rare so I want my windows to be not only maximized, but fullscreen. But then even on my 22 inches monitor, everything's maximized, even fullscreen'ed.
This is the reason I don't feel at home on Mac: You loose so much screen estate...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Darak
by Drumhellar on Thu 10th Dec 2009 21:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Darak"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Not having everything max by default greatly reduces the amount of window re-size operations when you do decide you want two or more windows visible.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Darak
by mrAmiga500 on Thu 10th Dec 2009 21:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Darak"
mrAmiga500 Member since:
2009-03-20

I've never understood why people don't use 100% of their screen estate... you paid for that big screen, use it! Or even worse, on smaller screen (eg. netbook) the space is rare so I want my windows to be not only maximized, but fullscreen.


I agree. The thing that annoys me most is windows that don't remember your size setting and stupidly open very small with list columns stupidly narrow. So, you open the program, maximize/resize, then manually adjust the list column widths so you can read the damn stuff (because it's too stupid to adjust automatically to the new size). If you close the program and re-open it, you have to do all that again. Microsoft programs are famous for that.

One Amiga (MUI) feature that other operating systems lack is the ability to "snapshot" all window sizes, positions and column sizes. After you snapshot (click the window gadget), the program ALWAYS opens to your preferred size and position. This works for every single Amiga MUI program. (automatic - doesn't depend on program author) You can even back up your preferred settings and use them on another computer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Darak
by malxau on Thu 10th Dec 2009 23:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by Darak"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

By extension, you could also make the blob non-proportional, and have it have a fixed size, but this takes valuable information away.


I believe this is why Windows acts this way. In Windows 3.x and earlier, scrollbars were non-proportional, and it made sense. With proportional scrollbars, previous behavior was carried forward. I don't know if this will be revisted someday, but it probably should be.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Darak
by bert64 on Fri 11th Dec 2009 13:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by Darak"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

[q]I'm not going to argue this one, as it was clearly tongue-in-cheek and I know I'm pretty much alone on it anyway - but the problem I have with the scroll-one-page solution is that you end up with a proportional UI element (the blob) inside a non-proportional element (the bar). With jump-to-here, both are proportional, which makes more sense to me (and only me, probably)./q]

No, this makes a lot of sense to me as well... I can't remember where i first encountered this behaviour but it always seemed more logical to me... If you want to move up or down by fixed increments you have the up/down buttons, the cursor keys and the pageup/pagedown keys.

Ofcourse, best way would be to have this option configurable, so those of us who like it can turn it on.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Darak
by shawnjgoff on Fri 11th Dec 2009 20:06 in reply to "RE: Comment by Darak"
shawnjgoff Member since:
2008-05-02

The bar is proportional: when you click in it, the "blob" moves a distance in proportion to the size of the document.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Darak
by MamiyaOtaru on Sat 12th Dec 2009 09:27 in reply to "RE: Comment by Darak"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

click and don't release. It will page up/down until it gets where your cursor is and will then stop

Reply Parent Score: 2