window resized to 9/10ths of my screen?

smayer97

I understand your frustration but you can either continue to argue with me and vent here (which will accomplish nothing) OR you can try posting your comment on a very live thread being monitored by the product manager (or try your hand a the other avenues, which are just go betweens anyway). It is up to you.

szzz

for the record, I am not arguing, I am pointing
out that the suggestions have been and remain
ineffectual, which as you describe is a waste of time.

please provide the link to the conversations with
quicken in release discussions, as my previous posts
prior to this release didn't port over...

smayer97

BTW, an alternative solution (or even a complementary one) would be an option for 2-line registers. Meanwhile, you can add your VOTE to Add option for 2-line/row display.

First, click on the underlined link above to go there, then click the little grey triangle under the VOTE count at the top of page 1 in the blue banner, so your vote will count for THIS feature and increase its visibility to the developers by seeking to have the features you need or desire end up in the latest version (it may take a moment for your vote to register).

Your VOTES matter!

smayer97

szzz said:

...
please provide the link to the conversations with
quicken in release discussions, as my previous posts
prior to this release didn't port over...

- a reply to a thread of a newly released version of QMac (current one is this thread) (product manager monitors these for a week or two after a release)

szzz

uhmm, your asking me to vote for a different issue?

I thought you had related there is a thread with discussion
with a quicken representative? that's the link I requested???

smayer97

You do realize this is NOT a chat session, right? So there is cross-talk and timing issues, especially since you are responding on 2 different threads...

Anyway, I supplied the link again just above...just take a look.

szzz

well given that guidance here has brought
me full circle to previous reporting of issues,
I have no idea what this is? support is inferred...

szzz

again, I'll relate that I did post on previous releases
when the problem occurred and subsequent releases.

continuity is fleeting here unless it's a place of work,
as finding the new release threads isn't in common links.

smayer97

You have only gone full circle because you have NOT gone to the link I provided, twice. That is still available to you.

smayer97

szzz said:

again, I'll relate that I did post on previous releases
when the problem occurred and subsequent releases.

continuity is fleeting here unless it's a place of work,
as finding the new release threads isn't in common links.

I get your frustration. I am not saying it is an efficient and effective process. But it is all we have, short of filing a complaint with the [link removed - no OOP postings please] (which I would reserve for serious issues).

szzz

I don't know how to say this such that you follow,
I have previously posted in release updates, and
have not had follow up or attention or what ever
this community passes for support, which is why
I re posted same same problems?

I feel like it's an attack on a customer that reports here
a problem in that either they are asked to vote or
it is suggested that they didn't comment in the right
thread to "get attention" to an issue???

when I experience a problem that no other software
(word, excel, browsers etc) incorporates as a feature,
(software occupying 9/10ths of screen) and try and
get resolution, I get asked to comment or vote?

smayer97

(read above...)

jacobs

@szzz You seem to be under a misconception that because a user requests a change in the program's operation, it will be promptly addressed by the developers. That's just not the case. The developers have many hundreds of requests for changes in the program from users, and in any given release, they address perhaps a dozen or two issues. As users, we never know which things will get worked on when. Other than a reproducible crash, there should be no expectation that a particular issue will be addressed in a particular release.

What they work on depends on how urgent a problem they think it is, how many people they perceive it affects, how complicated the change would be to implement, whether they plan to tackle related issues/parts of the program in some future larger overhaul, and which members of the development team are needed to work on the issue. Things which seem like they'd be an easy fix sometimes turn out to have significant complexity, and things which seem like they might require a lot of work sometimes turn out to be relatively easy to implement. 

On this particular issue, none of us know what was involved in the minimum screen size change last year. It may have been something minor or even inadvertent, or it may have been some complex issues with the user interface that they could only solve by making the minimum size larger. All you can do as a user is try to make the developers aware that this is an issue, and how/why it affects your usage of the program. There are several ways, none of them perfect, to try to get something on the radar of the developers, and once you have used them, there's nothing more you can do but wait. There are features/performance issues important to me that I've been pleased to see addressed over the years, and there are features/performance important to me that I Continue to wait to see addressed after more than five years.

smayer97

So it seems that Quicken has been updated in 5.14.2 to imporve this...see comment by Marcus here:

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20060371/#Comment_20060371

jacobs

Here's what Marcus wrote:

Quicken Marcus said:
It changed because the report toolbar got more complex and the buttons started overlapping at smaller sizes… I made the minimum window size smaller in 5.14.2 so this should work better.  It does mean in some screens there may be overlapping buttons and stuff for now but that's probably better than not being able to shrink the screen.  Hope this helps.

The minimum screen width is now down to about 52% of the width of a 21.5" iMac screen. I have too many columns I want visible for this to be of any usefulness to me, but for those who wanted the screen to be able to be significantly narrower, they've delivered. 

szzz

> @jacobs said:
> Here's what Marcus wrote:(Quote)
> The minimum screen width is now down to about 52% of the width of a 21.5" iMac screen. I have too many columns I want visible for this to be of any usefulness to me, but for those who wanted the screen to be able to be significantly narrower, they've delivered. 

I don't know if I should laugh or cry at restoring customer control
of screen size, as the previous change that didn't allow re-sizing on
smaller screens is nothing like other software I've encountered?

I'm not sure if this fix is a result of these posts or of the ticket I finally
go opened thru support?

I do agree that different users have different needs in terms of how
large they would like their columns (and fonts for that matter) to display.

I have several different spread sheets, all are sized to fit what and where
my display choices are, some are 3 columns, some are 30 columns and
I scroll left/right up/down for use. I am thankful that spread sheet software
companies don't force a min size to allow the software to work for me v.
me being required to accommodation the software.

jacobs

It's clearly because, as he wrote, things started bumping into each other at small window sizes.

szzz

> @jacobs said:
> It's clearly because, as he wrote, things started bumping into each other at small window sizes.

I completely understood the explanation, I just have never had software
dictate screen size or not allow the user to make exception to "things
bumping into each other" as happens when one resizes spreadsheets
to fit the work are on screen of multiple windows on display.

afterall, quicken previously allowed for smaller screen size and button
overlap, currently as previously column width in accounts & investment
page displays allow for inclusion/exclusion and all have min size.

whichever prompted action to restore usability that was mistakenly
removed, I salute!

smayer97

BTW, there is another feature that would complement this need for resizing and allowing the software to accommodate how a use wants to work. You can add your VOTE to Add option for 2-line/row display.

First, click on the underlined link above to go there, then click the little grey triangle under the VOTE count at the top of page 1 in the blue banner, so your vote will count for THIS feature and increase its visibility to the developers by seeking to have the features you need or desire end up in the latest version (it may take a moment for your vote to register).

(If the triangle is black, your vote has already been counted).

Your VOTES matter!

jacobs

In some software, such as Microsoft Office applications, tools simply disappear as you make a window smaller. Some might consider this a necessary tradeoff to allow the user to make the window size smaller, but I admit I've sometimes been temporarily stymied by a missing tool/control/button that I didn't realize was because my window size was too  small for it to display (and/or realized it but don't know an alternate way to access the feature). So there are always tradeoffs between keeping the user experience consistent (all tools/menus/controls visible) versus allowing the user to shrink the size of the window.

As the Quicken developers added more features and more menus/filters/controls, they widened the screen to accommodate them. It wasn't "mistakenly removed" -- it was intentionally removed, because they thought it wasn't a problem to increase the minimum window size.  Now, listening to user feedback,  they've allowed the UI to be compromised to allow the window to be smaller. Perhaps they'll next redesign some UI elements to allow a minimized size without elements bumping into each other.

szzz

suffice to say we disagree on the nature of overlooking screen size.

myself, I don't use quicken in a way that hides added buttons or selections
when screen is sized to default sizes of browsers, word processors, spread
sheets.

as you described, other major software manufacturers don't overlook the
user's experience and allow the user to make necessary trade offs of screen size, I am glad to see quicken return to parallel the choices other
competitors do, as this would be a deal breaker had it not been reversed.

szzz

> @smayer97 said:
> BTW, there is another feature that would complement this need for resizing and allowing the software to accommodate how a use wants to work. You can add your VOTE to Add option for 2-line/row display.
>
> First, click on the underlined link above to go there, then click the little grey triangle under the VOTE count at the top of page 1 in the blue banner, so your vote will count for THIS feature and increase its visibility to the developers by seeking to have the features you need or desire end up in the latest version (it may take a moment for your vote to register).
> (If the triangle is black, your vote has already been counted).
> Your VOTES matter!

I might be in the minority here, but I have no issues with 1 line display
on 12" macbook, screen sized to ~5/8ths width of display?

I use quicken to manage investments, assets, checking and credit cards.
however I'll add a vote to this issue.

jacobs

szzz said:

myself, I don't use quicken in a way that hides added buttons or selections
when screen is sized to default sizes of browsers, word processors, spread
sheets.

While it may not impact you, the developers had noted instances where UI elements were being affected for some users, so they widened the minimum screen size. Then they got complaints from you and others about this wider screen size, so they switched back to allowing a narrower screen and allowing some messiness in the UI to occur. While arguments can be made for either one being prioritized over the other -- they both affect the user experience -- the key is that users complained, the developers listened, and users persuaded them to make the change you were seeking. So I don't think there's any point in continuing to complain about why they had configured the wider window size in the previous version -- you won!

szzz said:

I might be in the minority here, but I have no issues with 1 line display
on 12" macbook, screen sized to ~5/8ths width of display?

No, actually I think a significant majority of Quicken Mac users agrees that the 1-line display is fine. It has frequently been the case that users migrating from Quicken Mac 2007 (or Windows) initially find the 1-line display different and jarring, so they ask for the 2-line display to be re-created for Quicken Mac. But as they use Quicken Mac for awhile, many -- not all, but I think the vast majority -- get used to it and find it's not a problem. I went from wishing for the 2-line display to actually preferring the one-line display, with smooth scrolling and all the configurability built into it. (You can see that idea thread posted by smayer97, who still uses Quicken 2007, got a lot of votes early on as people first switched to Quicken Mac, but hasn't received many comments/complaints in recent times.)

And before someone jumps on me for pointing this out, I do understand there is a legitimate reason some users might prefer a 2-line display if they aim to keep their Quicken window size small; I'm only saying I believe most Quicken Mac users are okay with the 1-line display. 

smayer97

jacobs said:

...

I went from wishing for the 2-line display to actually preferring the one-line display, with smooth scrolling and all the configurability built into it. (You can see that idea thread posted by smayer97, who still uses Quicken 2007, got a lot of votes early on as people first switched to Quicken Mac, but hasn't received many comments/complaints in recent times.)

Your statement of "... preferring the one-line display, with smooth scrolling and all the configurability built into it." implies this is not achievable with 2-line display. One has nothing to do with the other.

And yes, the 2-line display option continues to be voted on and a desired option (in the top 10 out of hundreds of requested ideas) and as of Oct 2019, is "Under Consideration". For those still wanting this, you can add your VOTE to Add option for 2-line/row display.

First, click on the underlined link above to go there, then click the little grey triangle under the VOTE count at the top of page 1 in the blue banner, so your vote will count for THIS feature and increase its visibility to the developers by seeking to have the features you need or desire end up in the latest version (it may take a moment for your vote to register).

(If the triangle is black, your vote has already been counted).

Your VOTES matter!