Re: MLS forced full screen.
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:24 am
Thanks for your response and help. I was mistaken on many of the things I said. It is great to hear that this is being worked.
As a developer myself, I can easily say that them just increasing the dimensions by 224x168, equates to forgetting about the task bar. I have done it myself. Nothing wrong with it, just a oversight that can be corrected. When the minimum size was 800x600, there were fewer monitors that had that as a maximum and was an issue.scgallafent wrote:That's not actually what the coders did. What the coders did was take the screen dimensions that were used when MLS was targeting 800x600 and expand the surface areas by exactly 224x168. Based on what we're seeing, the same issue would have occurred with the previous version of MLS when running at 800x600.alankristensen wrote:The coders forgot about the windows taskbar at the bottom of the screen. That takes up space.
That is wonderful to hear... than you very much.scgallafent wrote:The code fix that addresses it is already in MLS 3.7.4, which is expected to start beta testing in about a week. I can talk with the project manager about making it an open beta fairly early in the process so that it can be downloaded as soon as we're comfortable with a widespread release.
The window size has been adjusted in MLS 3.7.4 so that the button isn't hidden.
And that is exactly how the process improves. Thanks.scgallafent wrote:We have also identified the root cause of the issue and how it slipped through QA and made some adjustments to try to prevent a similar issue from making it through in the future.
As one that is affected directly by this, I am willing to state that it is a very quick turn around time and I personally would not want the testing portion abbreviated just to save time as that will allow other bugs to slip through.scgallafent wrote:Is it a bug? Absolutely. Are we fixing it? Absolutely and, I would argue, fairly quickly. The first forum report regarding the issue was made on September 27 and we'll have a fix out in beta less than 30 days later. (I'm not happy that it's taking that long, but there are other factors that drive that schedule.)
He is the coderalankristensen wrote:Again... thank you very much for doing the leg work on your side and pass on to the coders my appreciation for addressing this further. I understand why they want a larger minimum resolution to allow for better application functionality.scgallafent wrote:Is it a bug? Absolutely. Are we fixing it? Absolutely and, I would argue, fairly quickly. The first forum report regarding the issue was made on September 27 and we'll have a fix out in beta less than 30 days later. (I'm not happy that it's taking that long, but there are other factors that drive that schedule.)