NT6.47/6.48 Fields with width specified are now almost twice as long on a form.

[JPMacDonald]

Hi Bruce,

After updating to 6.47 and then to 6.48 it seems any field for which I have a width specified  is now almost twice as wide on a form  than it used to be. I see this in both FireFox and IE browsers

I saw this in the release notes for 6.47. "Add: Automatic "style" setting added to fields with a Width set to help Chrome." Could that be related to what I am seeing now?

Regards

Parker

[Johan de Klerk]

Yip, I can confirm this.

Fields are much longer than it used to be.

Regards

Johan de Klerk
C6.3-9058
NT 6.48

[Bruce]

yes, it's interesting.
I'm setting the field to have an "em" of the same as size - which in "theory" is the same setting, but em appears to be based on a wide character (like say W, or 0) whereas size appears to be based on some "average" character size. So, for example, where you've set size to 5 you couldn't actually enter WWWWW into that space. (it would scroll). With with:5em; you can. But then 12345 takes up only half the field.

I'll bump the em down a bit for the next build to compensate.

cheers
Bruce

[Stu]

Noooo! Just changed my custom field widths to mirror up with the current width format

[Bruce]

bummer... sorry....

[Stu]

Ha ha, I'm over it very quickly. Much better to get it back the way it was .. I only changed a couple of fields in two forms. No big deal at all!

[Robert Iliuta]

Bruce,

When you plan to release the new version with modifications?

Thank you,
Robert

[Bruce]

most likely early next week. At the moment I am hopping to get ready for Friday's webinar on Cryptonite and Safe Update.

[Rob Kolanko]

Hi Bruce,
The field widths issue has become a big problem for me. I upgraded from V6.46 to V6.48 and attached are images of a form before and after the upgrade. Forms that use the comments columns are particularly hard hit. Since there is a fix comming, I will not adjust widths on existing forms or build new forms until the fix is released. So a fix as earlier as possible would be nice.
Thanks
Rob


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Bruce]

Hi Robert,

I'll try and get an update out today - we'll see how the day goes.

cheers
Bruce

[Robert Iliuta]

Hallo Bruce,

The problem still persist on the latest release 6.49.
Please confirm and also please let me know an workaround for this?
I need to release an update this week.

Thank you,
Robert

[Rob Kolanko]

Hi Robert,
Since 6.49 did not change the widths of the string inputs fields, I concluded (and I hope Bruce as well) that the character width size has now been decided and it is larger than was used prior to NT6.47. Thus for my application string input fields where I have defined a character width, I have reduced the widths about third. Remember this width is only a estimate of the number of characters that will appear in the field, not the total number of characters accepted in the field. So if you have 30 character field, I am entering 20 as the width and normally 30 average mix of characters will fill the field and in most cases the user is not filling the field anyway. Definitely thirty capital "W" will not fit, but the field will scroll should it be entered.
Rob

[Robert Iliuta]

Hallo Rob,

>the character width size has now been decided and it is larger than was used prior to NT6.47

If you check with firebug you will discover that Bruce changed from "px" to "em" . That is the difference. And it's a big difference.
1em = 12pt = 16px = 100%.
http://pxtoem.com/

You can also read this article:
http://kyleschaeffer.com/best-practices/css-font-size-em-vs-px-vs-pt-vs/

My question is if Bruce will go for em or will revert to px. I need to know in order to modify all my entry fields....

Regards,
Robert

[Bruce]

Hi Robert,

actually no, I didn't change from px to em. I added the em. Previously it was just using the "size" value, but Chrome does not respect the Size attribute on number fields.

Now that actual em amount is what you want to check. It should be the same as size/2+1 . In the first implementation of this a build or so back I set the em = size, but that was way too big. So I've reduced it by half. If you check in firebug and it's half, then yes, that's likely the actual size going forward. (On my machine it's about the same going forward).

If however it's the same as the size then there's something wrong either in the build, or the install of the build.

cheers
Bruce

[Stu]

Can confirm that the field sizes haven't changed in the 6.49 I downloaded on Monday (aussie time).