We're adding the ability for every node to have a description field in its edit dialog. This will support markdown-formatted text which can be displayed in the Info sidebar tab when the node is selected.
The initial implementation (in dev branch now) adds the edit box for it to the 'node settings' section of the edit dialog - the section where you can edit the labels and icon of the node.
But it doesn't really fit (conceptually) with the label/icon properties. It is also a bit arbitrary to say what is a node 'property' or a node 'setting'.
The proposal at this point is to put the Description edit box in its own section of the edit dialog. This will also mean it is available to config nodes (that don't have the label/icon section).
This would look like the following:
Note the 'settings' section has been relabelled 'appearance' is a more accurate description of what it contains.
The downside with this approach is the additional vertical space it takes up. Not a problem for those of us with high resolution screens, but a really pain otherwise.
That brings us to a slightly more radical approach which I wanted to get feedback on. This adopts a similar style to the new style sidebar tab buttons introduced in 0.19:
(Ignore the particular icons used there... its a quick photoshop mockup).
What do you think? It gives us room for expansion in the future - there are some longer term items beyond 1.0 they may want to add extra things to the edit dialog that wouldn't currently have a place to fit.
Variant B. More space for actual thing is a way better than large buttons to reach to something you'll cant really use properly.
1 Like
as long as all the icons on the sidebar are available if there's space for them (*), I vote for the 2nd proposition.
(*) the icon buttons for the sidebar in the NR editor, on my screen, are not all displayed unless I enlarge the sidebar; while the tab containing the "info" text seems too large... this forces me to use the dropdown menu ...
I agree with the others, the new option is better overall. Both for space saving and consistency.
Of course, you wouldn't need the expander icon on the main area.
I wondered if anyone would pick up that... by the time I noticed I hadn't removed it in the mockup, I had already hit send.
1 Like
I vote for option two too
but you may wish to use the icon that it minimises to instead.
Trying not go too far of the topic but I think that the logic of changing the sidebar width and visibility of icons can maybe improved to achieve more usable working space in different situations. It goes to current sidebar as well to not yet made solution too.
If all available icons can be shown, the last icon can just replace the dropdown icon.
Small screens and stuff ...
I think we did try that - but it looked a bit "jumpy" - as you went from say 4 visible - to 2 visible plus the dropdown (= 3) - looked odd that the third icon suddenly became the down arrow, and two had disappeared.
Totally agree. By taking that jumpiness into as downside, there will be no win win solution.
