dmd 2.029 release [OT]

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:32:13 -0400, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede at iki.fi> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0400, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede at iki.fi>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We  
>>> Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page,  
>>> and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is  
>>> dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the  
>>> small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox??
>>>
>>> So now I have to learn to remember to grab bigger pictures near some  
>>> edge. And I really can't see *any* valid benefit for having to drag  
>>> the picture. I'd rather have it the old way, where the mouse pointer  
>>> simply changes shape, so you know you're dragging. Damn, damn...)
>>  On my system, dragging the image drags a translucent copy of the  
>> image, so I can still see where my mouse pointer is aimed.  Maybe you  
>> don't have enough colors enabled on your screen?
>
> Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the  
> next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose*  
> for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer,  
> cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles.
>
> I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging,  
> what it is he's dragging?

It might be useful if you accidentally start dragging the wrong thing, and  
then realize because you are dragging the wrong picture/text/etc.

But my point was really: you complained that you couldn't see the target  
because the picture is covering it.  My experience is that I can clearly  
see the target because the picture is translucent (I can see the target  
"underneath" the picture).

-Steve