On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 00:08 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com wrote:
It's funny you should say that.
We've had 800x600 as the expected minimum for _years_. Like, since it was called Red Hat Linux. It's not even a particularly egregious assumption, that's the fallback resolution for Windows 2k and later, and it's the Gnome HIG minimum design size.
That's why anaconda has a fixed-size UI, and why that fixed size happens to be 800x600.
Well minimum is fine; but it is also the maximum which is rather sucks, it shouldn't be hardcoded to be always 800x600 even on a 1980x1200 screen...
On a 2560x1600 screen, mousing all the way from the text entry fields in the top left to the buttons in the bottom right is something of a chore. 1920x1200 isn't much better.
Arbitrarily scalable UIs are really really hard.
- ajax