Re: Auto resize forms

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

Dear Allen:

So true. My applications will run at 800x600 and below, but the fonts
become much less distinct at that level and below. I generally make
1024x768 the lowest res for which I design, and require that setting at my
installations. I find I can shrink to this res and have good quality. I
simultaneously strongly recommend monitors of at least 19".

Nice as they are, the flat panels don't have much higer res that this. When
I design, I'm at 1600x1200 all the time. Doing this, and using a big
monitor is much more productive for me, but I'm always putting a lot of
things on the screen while I work.

It's hard to do, but I find I must convey the idea that to use old equipment
that is not up to today's standards is a waste of productivity. There are
often considerable productivity gains to be had at higher res, and I fully
intend to exploit them in the software I create. Having an adequate monitor
is a price you pay to get that productivity. There's no way around it.

Given an adequate monitor size, my applications always have print as large
or larger than your newspaper. People who think nothing of reading their
newspaper complain this is too small. I carry a newspaper along and show
them its bigger than the newspaper's font. The problem is, they want to put
their flat panel 3' away, so they can gain desk space. This is absurd. If
the computer is your main productivity tool, where you work for hours a day,
then put the face of the monitor no farther away than you would put a CRT
monitor. The desk space you save is behind the monitor, which isn't worth
the extra price of the flat panel. If you want the desk space in front of
the monitor, then you're going to need a 23" screen to get the same effect.
The price of that cools their ardor. The cause of the problem is built into
the laws of physics. "You can't fool mother nature."

Tom Ellison


"Allen Browne" <AllenBrowne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23vluLdJMGHA.3260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes, that sounds about right.

The forms still have be to designed to be usable at the lowest resolution
the users could have, i.e. you cannot pack a screen full of 8-pt text
boxes at 1280x1204 and still expect it to be readable when "shrunk" to
640x480. As a result, you need to ask what is the smallest resolution they
want to be use, and design for that. In practice, this means that you are
actually enlarging if you use this technique, as proportionally shrinking
does not work very well.

If you want the API call to read teh current screen settings:
http://vbnet.mvps.org/index.html?code/screen/displaysettings.htm

You can then proportionally resize upwards, paying special attention to
controls that contain other controls (such as option groups that contain
buttons that have attached labels) an so on.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"SuperSlueth" <np121@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hhs0v1t8ld0h8rr76g20rpe18av91vm72p@xxxxxxxxxx
It's was requested by our users, it's not so much the high resolution.
More the lower resolution users would like it to shrink to fit their
screens.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:25:30 +0800, "Allen Browne"
<AllenBrowne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If you want to do this, you are probably ready to buy the MS Access
Developers Handbook, by Ken Getz et al, published by Sybex. From memory,
it
is chapter 8 that contains this code.

Before you do this, though, you might like to reconsider whether it is a
good idea. I for one absolutely hate software that assumes if I have big
screen that it ought to use all that space. The reason I bought a large
screen is so I could see lots of things at once, not so some idiot
programmer could consume the whole thing with his application.




.

Quantcast