[CONTEDIT-136] Option to adjust LinkField width Created: 05/Jul/17  Updated: 11/Aug/17  Resolved: 11/Aug/17

Status: Closed
Project: Content Editor
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: New Feature Priority: Neutral
Reporter: Maxime Michel Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Won't Do Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: 5h
Time Spent: 3d 2.5h
Original Estimate: 3d

Attachments: PNG File browse-button-lost.png     PNG File infinitive-progress-when-close-story-app.png     PNG File linkfield-dynamic-width.png    
Issue Links:
relation
is related to CONTEDIT-122 Implement visual design for video block Closed
supersession
is superseded by CONTEDIT-146 Value dependent widths of link fields Closed
Template:
Acceptance criteria:
Empty
Date of First Response:
Story Points: 5

 Description   

The new look of 'browse' button implies that LinkFields do no longer need a 100% width. Create an option to adjust that.



 Comments   
Comment by Mikaël Geljić [ 18/Jul/17 ]

hieu.nguyen I just attached a "cropped" version of Anja's mockups from CONTEDIT-122.
This is always the same field, with fluid width, not 3 different fields with fixed configured widths.

  1. At first, the field is "fitted" to the input-prompt text (if set) or to a default value (browsers usually have a default input width, around 140px iirc)
  2. When the field is focused and the input-prompt disappears, field width stays the same.
  3. As you type more text, or select an item from the choose-dialog, the input width expands to fit the content, up to 100% max.
Comment by Mikaël Geljić [ 25/Jul/17 ]

As discussed upon review, we move that back to the content-editor for now.

Main reason is that we don't feel like introducing configurable width in field definitions (nor in plain `LinkFieldDefinition`); while at the same time, we vaguely plan to make field-definitions less UI-specific (and leave sizing to a new layout configuration in the form instead).

Comment by Rasmus Skjoldan [ 07/Aug/17 ]

I'm not entirely sure how it's going to look like without the adjusted width but it's not critical to get done.

Comment by Anja von Gunten [ 10/Aug/17 ]

I will spend some time on finding an alternative solution fx. "using a smaller fixed-width, or recalculating the width only upon value-change with a very simple strategy (if blank, set small fixed width, if not empty set full width)" as Mika has suggested. If we come up with an easier solution to be implemented that significantly improves the current version it would be nice to have it done for the release.

Comment by Mikaël Geljić [ 11/Aug/17 ]

This is now superseded by CONTEDIT-146.

Generated at Mon Feb 12 00:17:26 CET 2024 using Jira 9.4.2#940002-sha1:46d1a51de284217efdcb32434eab47a99af2938b.