Zoom Out: Rely on zoom-level instead of zoom-out mode #66141
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
youknowriad
requested review from
draganescu,
scruffian,
getdave,
jeryj and
richtabor
youknowriad
requested review from
tellthemachines and
ellatrix
as code owners
youknowriad
added
[Feature] Zoom Out
[Type] Bug
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
|
Size Change: -284 B (-0.02%) Total Size: 1.77 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
youknowriad
force-pushed
the
remove/zoom-out-mode
branch
from
eb0c1b2 to
b7f3d9a
Compare
|
Flaky tests detected in 82a5f29. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/11370202153
|
ntsekouras
approved these changes
Oct 16, 2024
|
This seems logical for the Gutenberg Plugin but not necessarily the WP 6.7 release. As you know we decoupled "zoom out affordances" from "zooming level" in order to set us up for what you're proposing here (essentially deprecating However, in 6.7 everything has proceeded along the lines that For me, I'd like to get some input from @kevin940726 for his opinion on this approach. |
|
Are we sure we'll not have a different selection model when zooming out? Is the discussion set on using edit mode when zoomed out at all times? If we remove the mode but sitll end up with a different selection model what strategy will we employ? @getdave and I worked together to decouple the mode change affecting the selection model from the scale factor. So I do see how this PR simplifies things. But I don't see design weighing in around how should this UX work, and we keep developing in engineering iterations. My fear is we'll then come back once there is some UX clarity. |
youknowriad
commented
Oct 16, 2024
|
@getdave I'll let you make the right decision for 6.7 but for me, if there's zoom-level state in 6.7, I don't see why we should be keeping two states for the same thing. you might consider that it's a big change for 6.7 and that would be fine by me though. @draganescu The current PR actually keeps the distinct interaction model for zoom-out (the unification is in the other PR), The important bit for me is that currently in trunk zoomLevel and zoom-out mode for the same thing, there's no flow where we want them to be disconnected, so there's no need to keep two states. |
youknowriad
force-pushed
the
remove/zoom-out-mode
branch
from
82a5f29 to
b123c4b
Compare
youknowriad
force-pushed
the
remove/zoom-out-mode
branch
from
6867757 to
502d309
Compare
In the site editor, there's the Styles > Browse Styles where zoomed level is engaged, but I'm not sure if the section block selection behavior should be active. Maybe @richtabor or @jasmussen can provide some input. |
Doesn't seem worth keeping the two, just for browse styles. So even tradeoffs as a result of merging, seem fine. |
|
I see the zoom level and UI changes as different things. There's the existing scenario for 'Browse Styles' that I don't think should change the UI. And in the future for image cropping full-width images, it would be nice to zoom out to more easily position the crop in context. I'm sure there are other scenarios where keeping them separate would be useful. |
|
I think given the level of uncertainty around whether this is the right approach we should stick with stability in 6.7. Therefore let's not backport this one. What do you think @draganescu @ajlende? Can we move forward like that? |
Yeah, let's hold off on moving this to 6.7 unless it's fixing a bug in that branch. |
This was referenced Oct 20, 2024
2 tasks
cbravobernal
changed the title
cbravobernal
changed the title
karthick-murugan
pushed a commit
to karthick-murugan/gutenberg
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
Co-authored-by: youknowriad <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ellatrix <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ntsekouras <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: jeryj <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: getdave <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: draganescu <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Related #65736
Closes #66138
What?
This is an experiment at the moment but I really think, this is the way forward. We should avoid having two separate states to decide whether we're in zoom-out or not.
It seems the consensus so far is that zoom-out is not an editor mode in the same sense as "navigation" or "edit". So this PR makes that more clear by just relying on the zoom level everywhere to make the checks, effectively removing the "zoom-out" mode.
This also solves a few other things:
I want to hear your opinions.