Limit VI Panel Size to 1024x768

[X.]

For consistency with the new National Instrument Web Framework, large VI panels should be prohibited.

How else get used to this arbitrary size if not by being constantly reminded of the benefit of this ideal dimension?

PS: It's a bit early, but I had to do it.

[crossrulz]

For those who don't understand this idea, read this post:http://forums.ni.com/t5/Feedback-on-NI-Discussion-Forums/New-forum-layout/m-p/2786780#M11271.  And then read the whole thread.

[altenbach]

Of course the same should apply even more to the block diagram 😄

(Well, when I started with LabVIEW 4.0, the monitor actually was 1024x768 🐵

I guess we would need to also dust off the old stacked sequences with that kind of diagram constraints. 😉

[X.]

Actually, I think the diagram should be limited to 800 x 600 or possibly less.

[RavensFan]

The idea makes sense to me.  (Not the 1024x768 part.)

If there is a setting within VI properties where you can set the set the minimum size of a window, why shouldn't there be a setting at the other end that limits out large you can make a window?

I'm not sure what the behavior should be if you hit the Maximize Window button on a VI running on a PC with a much larger desktop.  Does it just make the window as large as the limit, but leave it as a window and not a Full Screen window?

[donkdonk]

In our lab we (almost) never leave the development environment. For us, LabVIEW programs are (almost) never deliverables.

GUI design is not that important. We usually want to monitor a lot of things and we want to be able to change it fast during our research project. We are developers and users at the same time.

For these reasons I am against a forced (small) panel size. Sorry, no kudos.

[DanyAllard]

It's a joke right? If not, I'm in total disagree with this idea. Most of the modern display are 1920x1080 or better. Don't impose any restriction on what we can do. We mostly create resizeable front panel so we cover most of the resolution screen available. So, no kudos

[X.]

That's a lot of pixels! Try to draw them all, as this VI does:

Here's the result (using black and white for the colors):

Dang! It doesn't fit into the allowed forum width, I am afraid...

[RavensFan]

I think this idea was presented somewhat as a joke, but I think it also has some actual validity.  Window size is an option, and in no way is a max size "forced" on someone.  Same way now that the min size of the window can be forced if the programmer wants, or not forced by leaving those properties at 0,0.

Max window size could be forced if the programmer feels it is necessary by having that option in the Windows Size VI property box.   Or for donkdonk where they are both users and developers, you can leave the max window size free to be whatever the user drags it to by using 0, 0.

If the programmer can have the option to force a minimum window size (or not force), the other side of the coin says they also should be able to force or not force a maximum window size.

[Intaris]

Another way to go forward would be to limit a Block Diagram window to 32x32, that way a sub-VI Icon could actually be an accurate representation of the code on the diagram.  Imagine how that would help with debugging......

I foresee absolutely no problems with this approach......

[tst]

---

Another way to go forward would be to limit a Block Diagram window to 32x32, that way a sub-VI Icon could actually be an accurate representation of the code on the diagram.  Imagine how that would help with debugging......

---

Well, a while back I did suggest embedding a Piet compiler into LV, so that your subVI icons could be functional (that'll teach people not to keep the default icon), but unlike X., my suggestion never made it into the IE.