mlevin
10-11-2004, 19:56
Hello, Alexey,
I wonder if you plan to invent the merging of cells in a screen. I'll explain why it could be useful.
I have a some sort of generic view. It has a network map, large cell, I try to fit everything into 400x400. And on the side there is a disk usage graph. It is only 200 (+ a legend) pixels of height. the 150+ pixels are wasted. Even more, the graph below a map has to be ~400 pixels wide, but all other graphs are only 250 of width. Looks not unproportional. Something like this:
+-----------------+
| | Gr | Gr |
| M A P | | |
| | | |
|-------+----+----+
| Graph | Gr | Gr |
+-----------------+
And having the rowspan and colspan features the screen could be more loaded. For example:
+-------------------+
| | Gr | Gr |
| M A P +----+----+
| | Gr | Gr |
|---------+----+----+
| Gr | Gr | Gr | Gr |
+-------------------+
So you see what I mean? I hope you'll love to use that for your own screens too.
Good luck,
Mikhail
I wonder if you plan to invent the merging of cells in a screen. I'll explain why it could be useful.
I have a some sort of generic view. It has a network map, large cell, I try to fit everything into 400x400. And on the side there is a disk usage graph. It is only 200 (+ a legend) pixels of height. the 150+ pixels are wasted. Even more, the graph below a map has to be ~400 pixels wide, but all other graphs are only 250 of width. Looks not unproportional. Something like this:
+-----------------+
| | Gr | Gr |
| M A P | | |
| | | |
|-------+----+----+
| Graph | Gr | Gr |
+-----------------+
And having the rowspan and colspan features the screen could be more loaded. For example:
+-------------------+
| | Gr | Gr |
| M A P +----+----+
| | Gr | Gr |
|---------+----+----+
| Gr | Gr | Gr | Gr |
+-------------------+
So you see what I mean? I hope you'll love to use that for your own screens too.
Good luck,
Mikhail