Home General
New Blog Posts: Merging Reports - Part 1 and Part 2

Another simple wish

edited February 2002 in General
Hey, i'm talking as my customers... all changes and features are always
*simple* hehe ;)
Well, it'll be nice to have the hability to lock the controls on it's
positions as you do in Delphi IDE.
thans
--
Guillermo Castaño Acevedo
Gerente de Sistemas - Grupo Millennium Ltda
GuillermoC@GrupoMillennium.com
www.GrupoMillennium.com
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Comments

  • edited February 2002
    > Hey, i'm talking as my customers... all changes and features are always

    I asked the same thing some time ago in the End Users designer
    newsgroup, but never got a response to that. At least I think we mean
    the same thing. Correct me if you meant something else.

    The problem is that RB snaps to the absolute grid or every 8th pixel
    while Delphi snaps to a grid relative to the current control position.

    Snapping to the absolute grid is fine as long as one does not nudge. The
    problem starts with nudging. For example say someone nudges a RB
    component to the 7th pixel. Now she selects it and moves it a little
    while holding the mouse. Releasing it will now snap it to the 8th pixel
    instead of the original 7th one. This is very confusing and one has to
    nudge it again to repair the difficult to see one pixel off error.

    Borland noticed this problem and repaired it by using a relative grid.
    When moving a component located at the 7th pixel it should snap at the
    original position (7) and at the 15th pixel (7+8).

    This would make moving nudged components a much more user friendly
    experience. To get the component back to the original absolute grid a
    "Align to Grid" option should be added (again just like Delphi does).

    My customers using the End Users Designer will be eternally gratefull if
    this feature was implemented. Right now we get a lot of "the component
    magically changed position" complaints.

    Jan Derk
  • edited February 2002
    Actually i'm asking a more simple feature. Just to be able to lock the
    control positions in order to can't accidentally move them when you're
    selecting them to change it's properties.


    --
    Guillermo Castaño Acevedo
    Gerente de Sistemas - Grupo Millennium Ltda
    GuillermoC@GrupoMillennium.com
    www.GrupoMillennium.com
    Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  • edited February 2002
    Yes, the "Component Lock" is on our ToDo list. I think this would be a cool
    feature, too.


    Cheers,

    Jim Bennett
    Digital Metaphors Corp



  • edited February 2002
    > Actually i'm asking a more simple feature. Just to be able to lock the


    OK I see. Should have thought twice.

    JD
  • edited February 2002
    > Yes, the "Component Lock" is on our ToDo list. I think this would be a cool

    Any comments on a Delphi like relative snap grid? I would like to know
    your guys' opinion on that. Even if you think it's a useless waste of
    time ;)

    JD
  • edited February 2002
    If you go into the report designer's View menu, you'll see a Grid Options...
    item. We introduced it, but took it back out of the product because of
    bugs. The menu item was left in place, and it doens't do anything right
    now. We are planning on adding this again, in the future.


    Cheers,

    Jim Bennett
    Digital Metaphors Corp



  • edited February 2002
    >>Any comments on a Delphi like relative snap grid? I would like to know


    Hi Jim,

    I know that the View Grid option is disabled, but that's not what I mean
    with snap to a relative grid. Please reread my previous post carefully.
    It's somewhat geeky, but it shows a clear problem. To try it yourself
    please do the following with Grid snap on in ReportBuilder:

    - Place two label components on a report. Put the second one on the
    right of the first one so they are vertically aligned (Two labels are
    not necessary, but it more clearly shows the alignment problem)

    - Nudge them both 2 pixels down (they should still be vertically aligned)

    - Now select the second one with your mouse and move it to the right.

    The second label will now snap back to the old grid instead of relative
    to it's current position. Even worse, if you select the second label and
    start moving, then decide that you don't want to move it, you can't put
    it back at it's position. You have to release it and again nudge it to
    get it alignment right again. Delphi does not do this. It snaps the
    control back to the last position.

    If you try this in both RB and Delphi and you'll see why the Delphi
    relative snapping is much user friendly than the current absolute
    ReportBuilder snapping. IMHO if there was Delphi type snapping in
    ReportBuilder, less users would ask for a control lock feature.

    Fuzzy as it sounds, I hope you don't ignore this post but check this one
    out carefully, as it really would improve the user friendlyness in
    creating reports a lot.

    Jan Derk
  • edited February 2002
    Ok, I did what you said, but it just snaps to the grid, as I would expect
    it. It seems to be the correct behavior, if not the desired one. I do like
    the idea that it should be able to snap to the relative position so that it
    would be reurned to its relative position, so you don't have to reshift it
    by a pixel or two. Thanks for the suggestion.

    Cheers,

    Jim Bennett
    Digital Metaphors Corp



  • edited February 2002
    > Ok, I did what you said, but it just snaps to the grid, as I would expect

    Thanks for trying. I love the way you guys provide customer support. Yes
    I agree, it's a feature, not a bug ;) However, one which could be improved.


    Glad you like it. It's my experience that most report designers notice
    that moving components around in ReportBuilder is a little more awkward
    than it is in Delphi, but most of them do not know why. I had the same
    experience, and decided to find out why. That's when I discovered that
    Delphi snapped relative.

    JD
This discussion has been closed.