Re: Display bigger version of a photo on a tooltip

["Michael Schmarck" <michael schmarck habmalnefrage de>]

Steve,

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Steve Dobson
<steve dobson syscall org uk> wrote:
> Michael
>
>
>  On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 15:06 +0100, Michael Schmarck wrote:
>  > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Steve Dobson
>  > <steve dobson syscall org uk> wrote:
>
> > >  With this new advanced knowledge you come up with a way were this
>  > >  advanced feature could be available to a newbie from the get-go.  There
>  > >  is only one problem with it: it isn't advantageous to all workflows.
>  >
>  > You keep on saying that, but you never say, when it is
>  > not advantegeous.
>
>  Whenever you don't want to look at an enlarged thumbnail.

Okay. In that case, just don't hover. I guess I must be missing
something obvious here.

>  Does it
>  matter what the reason it?

No.

>  There are workflows, mine for example, where
>  the enlarged thumbnail is counterproductive.

Yes. But why do you need to hover your mouse pointer
over a picture?

>  > >  As
>  > >  you admit that my workflow is just as valid as your own why should your
>  > >  preferences overrule mine?
>  >
>  > Same is true for the other way around.
>
>  Not if his way removes my workflow as an option.

Does it? How? Your workflow involves hovering the mouse
pointer over an image and it requires that the image is then
not made more visible (ie. enlarged)? Why?

And what about workflows, where the enlarged image
is beneficial?

> One way is to always
>  zoom, another is to never zoom.  My way is to zoom on user request.

Not just your way. Also with Davids enhancement being
implemented, the zoom would only be done on user request.
Again: Just the way of "saying" "Magnify now!" changes.

>  My
>  argument is that the user should always be in control.

Yes. That would be possible with Davids enhancement as well.

>  > >  My solution is that this feature should be configurable, and the
>  > >  following four (minimum) options should be available:
>  >
>  > four? For such an option? I truely think, that this is TOO MUCH.
>
>  Really?  Which ones would you remove?  The one I placed particularly to
>  help the disabled?  The new one suggested by David.  The current way or
>  the just turn it off?

I'd at least remove the option to turn it off completely,
as I see no reason for such an option. If you don't
want an enlarged image, then just don't hover. Problem
solved.

> I really think that is the minimum if you're
>  going to put the feature under configuration control.

Yes. *IF*. I'm saying that it shouldn't be.

>  > What I'm interested in, is why you're opposing the feature
>  > request. If you just don't hover, you simply won't use the
>  > new feature. So what's the problem?
>
>  I'm not opposing it.  I'm just saying that it should be under user
>  control because there are times when it is not useful.

I guess I'm dense, but what's so hard about not
hovering the mouse pointer over an image?

Michael