February 2009 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Proposed goal for website: happily usable at 800x600?

by Dan Kegel

Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> wrote: >> What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it >> might make sense to review our web site and make sure >> its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen > > For what it's worth, most netbooks have a 1024x600 resolution (all the > 9" and 10" ones as far as I know, with the exception of the HP one which > has a highjer resolution). The old 7" models might have had an 800x600 > resolution but I think these can be ignored now (no 7" netbook is > shipping anymore). It's true, Amazon doesn't list 7" laptops anymore. Whew! http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2009/January/res.php shows that most users have a 1024x768 screen size, so let's first make sure we handle that well. That's easy to test; just start Firefox with firefox -width 1000 -height 700 and make sure that: the real content starts no more than halfway down the page, the left and right borders don't squeeze the content too much, and that the user can clearly grasp what the page is about without scrolling. (http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/blasting-the-myth-of explains when it's ok to rely on the user scrolling, and when it's not.) Our download page, sadly, still fails that test, even with the recent improvement. But most of our pages don't fare too badly. Once we get the few pages that fail that test fixed up, we could consider the fact that lots of people are starting to use iPhones and the like to browse the web, and those have an even smaller screen: 480x320! The lovely Wine logo (200x313) on our new site takes up most of the screen on one of those. I'm not sure what to do about that. Perhaps we could detect that using Javascript and switch to a background with smaller logo. Let's worry about that later, though. - Dan

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: [PATCH] comdlg32: check for lfs NULL ptr (Coverity)

by Alexandre Julliard

Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)jet.franken.de> writes: > CID 119, 188, resubmit with working patch from earlier round. > > I guess we could also just let it crash if this happens, but > I am not feeling comfortable. These are internal functions, it doesn't make sense to call them with NULL. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: urlmon: Corrected tests (resend)

by Alexandre Julliard

Alistair Leslie-Hughes <leslie_alistair(a)hotmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > Changelog: > urlmon: Corrected tests Please write a better description. "Corrected tests" applies to every test commit. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: gdi32: Fixed a couple of Win64 pointer cast compiler warnings

by Alexandre Julliard

Eddie Leung <eddie.leung.2009(a)anderson.ucla.edu> writes: > diff --git a/dlls/gdi32/dc.c b/dlls/gdi32/dc.c > index c8a3c4c..44a9a6f 100644 > --- a/dlls/gdi32/dc.c > +++ b/dlls/gdi32/dc.c > @@ -1433,7 +1433,7 @@ static BOOL WINAPI call_dc_hook16( HDC hdc, WORD code, DWORD_PTR data, LPARAM lP > args[2] = LOWORD(data); > args[1] = HIWORD(lParam); > args[0] = LOWORD(lParam); > - WOWCallback16Ex( (DWORD)dc->hookProc, WCB16_PASCAL, sizeof(args), args, &ret ); > + WOWCallback16Ex( (DWORD_PTR)dc->hookProc, WCB16_PASCAL, sizeof(args), args, &ret ); The correct fix for these things is to move them to a 16-bit file that doesn't get compiled at all for Win64. It doesn't make sense to call WOWCallback16 in 64-bit mode. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: Proposed goal for website: happily usable at 800x600?

by SorinN

Years ago I was a happy CLI user - but for nornal browsers Javascript is OK - for non JS browsers - a noscript version of the website can be generated - and long page content can be arranged in part1, part2, etc - accessible via bottom links 2009/2/13 Seth Shelnutt <shelnutt2(a)gmail.com>: > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 2009/2/13 SorinN <nemes.sorin(a)gmail.com>: >> > it could be done with jQuery >> >> I hear this a lot. Is it really such a good idea? I'd argue a site not >> requiring Javascript to function is much cleaner, friendlier and more >> accessible. >> >> > > I agree, with the no javascript requirement. I can't tell you how > frustrating it is if I am using links from the CLI and I hope a site just to > have it say that because javascript is required I can't access even the > text. Now I really can't see anyone trying to do anything with wine from the > CLI, and not having a xserver open to use a better browser though. > > > > -- Nemes Ioan Sorin

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: lz32: Fix several test failures on Windows 9x systems

by Alexandre Julliard

Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> writes: > @@ -231,7 +231,9 @@ static void test_LZOpenFileA_existing_compressed(void) > file = LZOpenFileA(_terminated, &test, OF_EXIST); > ok(file >= 0, "LZOpenFileA failed on switching to a compressed file name\n"); > ok(test.cBytes == sizeof(OFSTRUCT) || > - broken(test.cBytes == 40), /* win95 */ > + broken(test.cBytes == 34) /* winME */ || > + broken(test.cBytes == 40) /* win95 */ || > + broken(test.cBytes == 48), /* some win95 */ My guess is that this depends on the length of the filename, not on the platform. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: Proposed goal for website: happily usable at 800x600?

by Remco

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/2/13 SorinN <nemes.sorin(a)gmail.com>: >> it could be done with jQuery > > I hear this a lot. Is it really such a good idea? I'd argue a site not > requiring Javascript to function is much cleaner, friendlier and more > accessible. > While that is true, you can use javascript to enhance a site's usability. In this case, the site would still work without javascript, but paging would be done using jquery. Remco

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: Proposed goal for website: happily usable at 800x600?

by Seth Shelnutt

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/2/13 SorinN <nemes.sorin(a)gmail.com>: > > it could be done with jQuery > > I hear this a lot. Is it really such a good idea? I'd argue a site not > requiring Javascript to function is much cleaner, friendlier and more > accessible. > > > I agree, with the no javascript requirement. I can't tell you how frustrating it is if I am using links from the CLI and I hope a site just to have it say that because javascript is required I can't access even the text. Now I really can't see anyone trying to do anything with wine from the CLI, and not having a xserver open to use a better browser though.

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: Proposed goal for website: happily usable at 800x600?

by Ben Klein

2009/2/13 SorinN <nemes.sorin(a)gmail.com>: > it could be done with jQuery I hear this a lot. Is it really such a good idea? I'd argue a site not requiring Javascript to function is much cleaner, friendlier and more accessible.

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: Proposed goal for website: happily usable at 800x600?

by SorinN

( sorry for re-post - first response go only to Dan Kegel ) on short - that means a lot of scroll OR to split too big contents like : Title Content asdfsdaf sadfsadf sadfsadfs sad 4545 fsdf sadf sdfsdfsadf part 1 link, part 2 link ( page bottom ) it could be done with jQuery also for 800x600 the left menu can be fluid / retractable 2009/2/13 Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com>: > 2009/2/13 Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr>: >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Dan Kegel wrote: >> >>> What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it >>> might make sense to review our web site and make sure >>> its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen >>> (easy to simulate, just resize your browser until xwininfo >>> says it's 800x550, those gnome top and bottom bars >>> chew 25 pixels each). >> >> For what it's worth, most netbooks have a 1024x600 resolution (all the >> 9" and 10" ones as far as I know, with the exception of the HP one which >> has a highjer resolution). The old 7" models might have had an 800x600 >> resolution but I think these can be ignored now (no 7" netbook is >> shipping anymore). >> > I think it's still valuable as an accessibility thing. Remember, not > everyone has excellent eyesight! > > > -- Nemes Ioan Sorin

Feb. 13, 2009