|
superboyac
|
 |
« on: February 09, 2011, 10:59:13 AM » |
|
Ok, I bet you guys have never tried this:
Click somewhere inside the header field for Outlook 2007 (I don't know if the other versions do it). Then Ctrl-scroll with the mouse wheel (like you would zoom on a webpage). Isn't that odd?
Ok that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Curt
|
|
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2011, 11:01:59 AM » |
|
 I have no idea what might happen, but it sounds funny 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
y0himba
|
|
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2011, 11:05:05 AM » |
|
Odd. Why on Earth would it do that? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 11:15:14 AM by y0himba »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stoic Joker
|
|
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2011, 11:52:58 AM » |
|
Tried it with Outlook 2010 - Not sure what you're calling the header field but... - on the ribbon it did nothing; on new mail to/from/cc/bcc/subject fields it made the font bigger and/or smaller.
the same thing works on the main message body, and tracked with the zoom the current setting ... So I'm guesing it just Zooming the text in the other fields also.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
superboyac
|
|
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2011, 11:55:25 AM » |
|
y0himba! Nice! That's cool of you to post that!
Yeah, isn't that funny? I think it's because MS likes to stick their IE engine all over the place, so that header area is probably just a modified IE something or other. I hate it when developers stick in a pane or view in their programs which is just a window for IE, and then they say "built in browser". I hate it because IE is usually slow and they are using it as a shortcut for functionality, rather than programming their own interface. I shouldn't criticize too much because I don't know how much work is involved one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MrCrispy
|
|
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2011, 07:25:44 PM » |
|
Actually it does sort of make sense, since using mshtml (embedded IE) gives you all sorts of things like parsing internet addresses. What they forgot to do was remove the mouse and keyboard handling. I've had to do something similar for an app I wrote - the UI was quite complex and the easiest way was to build it using css+html (we could not use XAML) so it used an embedded IE browser. There is a lot of messy code required to make sure you disable all the default behavior and keyboard+mouse shortcuts, otherwise you get fun stuff like hitting Alt+arrow and the UI changes  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
fenixproductions
|
|
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2011, 02:52:25 AM » |
|
I think it's because MS likes to stick their IE engine all over the place, so that header area is probably just a modified IE something or other. I've thought there is no IE code in Outlook 2007 (and later). If there is, why the hell did they remove it from message body only? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Надо было учиться, а не камни в школу бросать...-- f0dder is my personal hero
|
|
|
|
Armando
|
|
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2011, 12:03:50 AM » |
|
I hate it because IE is usually slow and they are using it as a shortcut for functionality, rather than programming their own interface. I shouldn't criticize too much because I don't know how much work is involved one way or the other.
...Especially if 99 % of users wouldn't notice the performance (or other) improvement but certainly wouldn't fail to notice the absence of the some other features they'd expect. The 20/80 rule rules here. And, yes, recoding everything all the time would most of the time be a lot more work (much more work). Components are there so that programmers don't always have to reinvent the wheel and spend their time coding in assembly, C and C++. Redesigning the wheel is sometimes appropriate, often it's not. I don't know how others feel about that... Is the bug you noticed due to IE ? maybe... MrCrispy's explanation seems reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
|
|
|
|
superboyac
|
|
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2011, 12:08:05 AM » |
|
I know, I know. I shouldn't be so overly critical about everything. believe me, I know. I've come up with ways to curb my compulsion to criticize, but it needs time to mature, I only started doing it a few months ago. outlook's not so bad. Neither is IQ! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
worstje
|
|
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2011, 01:58:10 AM » |
|
I'm sorry to say it, but I do agree with the fact that the IE engine is too much for this case. Yes, there is a point for re-use. But there's also a good point for abstraction. That control has just so much junk squashed into it, it will lag everything to hell. Have you ever tried to hit back or forward on a website while using any IE version of the last 10 years? If you have, you'll know it takes a second (even on a fresh install) for the page to actually jump. The annoying *clicky* sound makes it even worse feeling-wise. Now compare that to a browser like Opera or Chrome, and you won't notice a thing. Instantaneous switching. It just has baggage. All webbrowsers do in one way or another. Which is why I am against everything going to the web. Too. Much. Damn. Baggage.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Armando
|
|
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2011, 10:32:58 AM » |
|
I wasn't speaking for ie in particular. We all know ie isn't the greatest. AFAIC though, I'm not sure exactly how ie was used in that specific case and if it does affect Outlook's performance. 2003 has the same problem depicted in yohimba's post, yet it's really speedy, no lag, nothing. I have 1.5b of stuff in there and I have yet to find something to manage e-mail, calendar, tasks, contact, etc. that's as responsive and isn't a performance hog (at all). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
|
|
|
|
superboyac
|
|
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2011, 12:00:54 PM » |
|
Just FYI, this thread wasn't a complaint about Outlook. Just a weird thing I noticed, that's all.
I personally don't prefer Outlook over the Bat, but that's not saying much. They each have their pros and cons. Just for me, the pros of the Bat outweight Outlook's. I bitch about Outlook in other threads, like the one where I curse out the global address book.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
