On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:32:56 -0500 Daniel Joyce <daniel.a.joyce at att.net> wrote:
>	It is not desirable if you use larger fonts. Too many windows assume 12 pt 
>as the normal size, and are hardcoded for that.
>
>	With a 22 pt font ( needed for 1280x1024, so I can read stuff ), the text 
>runs outside a lot of buttons, and it looks very unprofessional and hackish.
>
>	I can resize fonts in Gnome, KDE, and Windows, and the buttons resive with 
>them.

>From the jpg you sent, the buttons *did* resize to contain the text. The problem was that the parent of buttons did not resize to enclose the buttons. The issues you point to are easily fixed. In SoundDemoMorph>>initialize, e.g., change

	self hResizing: #spaceFill.
to
	self hResizing: #shrinkWrap.

and you will get something more pleasing.

>	Squeak has too many hardcoded extents, and morphs that aren't smart enough 
>to resize properly.

Why not submit changes where you think they are needed?

>	If Squeak is ever going to be taken seriously as a environment by outsiders, 
>it needs to look professional.

That may depend on your intended audience. Some people are wowed by "professional" while others may prefer "fun", "powerful" or "innovative".

>	Not clipping submorphs is silly. Have you ever seen text appear outside the 
>window/widget/button that contains it on Win95/KDE/Gnome? I haven't.

Never having used any of those, I can't comment. I wonder if you mean resizing rather than clipping in these cases. Having buttons hanging over the edge of their parent seems a bit better than having tham clipped out of existence, but having the parent resize to contain them seems best.

>	Heck, Microsoft got this right in Windows 3.1.
>
>	Why can't we?

I think we can.

Cheers,
Bob