After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 96343 - no clear behavioral policy for size conflicts between applet and panel
no clear behavioral policy for size conflicts between applet and panel
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: gnome-panel
Classification: Other
Component: general
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Panel Maintainers
Panel Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2002-10-20 22:17 UTC by Michael Toomim
Modified: 2007-06-29 12:20 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.9/2.10



Description Michael Toomim 2002-10-20 22:17:27 UTC
If you have a panel set to a size smaller than one of it's applets, the
panel won't shrink.

But then you get a weird panel like the following:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=11717

Usability Problems:

  1) There's no way to tell which applet is preventing the panel from
shrinking, other than removing the panel applets 1-by-1 until the panel
shrinks.  Can you tell, in the screenshot, where the problem is?  When I
originally saw this, I thought it was a problem with the window-list (and
almost filed a bug).  But it's the clock!

  2) Some applets expand to fill the width of the actual panel (like the
window-list), while other applets don't get wider than the panel's
specified width (like the menu, drawer, mixer, and workspace-switcher). 
There should be a policy one way or the other, and all applets should
behave consistently.

I think that these two issues are probably the result of some higher-up
hole in the design.  Has anyone come up with a design and specification for
how applets should behave with respect to different panel sizes?

Also see bug 83686 and bug 96341.
Comment 1 Michael Toomim 2002-10-20 22:21:41 UTC
Also see bug 75189.
Comment 2 Arvind S N 2002-10-21 03:43:02 UTC
Michael: For point 1, we already have bugs bug 83686 and bug 96341.
So, the issues left in this bug would be point 2 excluding the clock
applet. Guess, we should be raising bugs against the respective
applets which are causing the problem. But we could leave this one for
the discussions to take place and finally raise bugs if required
against the respective applets. Hope it is fine. Also some discussion
did take place in bug 94152 on issue.
Comment 3 Michael Toomim 2002-10-21 16:23:22 UTC
Yes, maybe I wasn't too clear: this bug is that there isn't a general
policy saying what to do.

Bug 83686 and bug 96341 don't actually discuss point 1.  Point 1 is
that it's impossible for the user to figure out which applet is
preventing his panel from being small when he tries to make it small.
 Those bugs just discuss the problem of one particular applet (the
clock applet) that keeps the panel from being small.  For some
applets, it might be desirable for them not to shrink (I don't know).
 But you should still be able to tell *why* it is that your panel
doesn't shrink -- thus the usability problem of point 1.

For point 2: Before filing bugs with individual applets, we need to
determine what the applets should be doing in the first place!  Should
they expand to fill a panel's width, even if the panel is set to a
smaller width than it can go, or should they be at the width the the
user set the panel to?  I can think of arguments for both options. 
For instance, if all applets shrunk to the user's specified panel
size, we'd have a partial solution for point 1: it would be much
clearer which applet is preventing the panel from shrinking.

It's hard to file bugs against all applets without knowing what
behavior is "buggy".  That's why I filed this bug -- I don't think
anybody's really thought about a policy to figure out this general
problem.
Comment 4 Seth Nickell 2002-10-22 04:11:23 UTC
My personal feeling is that all applets should be responsible for
shrinking to however small the panel asks them to go. If it is waaay
smaller than they can go, they could opt to display text or something
informing the user of that. Expanding the panel can be, as Michael
points out, very annoying.
Comment 5 Michael Toomim 2002-10-22 04:23:27 UTC
That's my personal feeling too. One option might be to modify the
applet framework, in particular the canvas, such that any applet that
paints itself through the canvas can by dynamically shrunk (or
stretched for big panels) in order to fit on the panel at a good size.

However, I don't know *anything* about the actual gnome applet
framework code, and have no idea about whether this would be possible
or desirable.

And not too many applets use a canvas.  But I think the ones that have
the most trouble rescaling are either A) the ones that DO use a canvas
(like wanda-the-fish) or B) the ones with wide text strings on
vertical panels, like the clock (and window-list to some extent). 
Both of these components seem to be good candidates to apply an
"applet resizing framework" to, since they are fairly straightforward
to resize.

This would, at least, make it easier for applets to conform to ackward
panel sizes, so that we wouldn't have to worry about applets that
don't fit on the panel as much.
Comment 6 David William Price 2005-03-14 18:41:41 UTC
Is this still an issue? Panels (even a new empty one) in 2.8 don't seem to
shrink less than 23 pixels (although they allow for the pixel width to be
decreased all the way to 12 with no discernable effect).
Comment 7 Vincent Untz 2007-06-29 12:20:35 UTC
I think this got fixed with the new toplevels in 2.4.