Text field alignments

[Donald Allen]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Charles Day <cedayiv at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Tommy Trussell <tommy.trussell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Donald Allen <donaldcallen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu> wrote:
>> > > Charles Day <cedayiv at gmail.com> writes:
>> > >
>> > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Fred Bone
>> > >> <Fred.Bone at dial.pipex.com>wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> When viewing a register in "Basic Ledger" view, the "other-account"
>> > >>> names
>> > >>> in the "Transfer" column are right-justified. So if the complete
>> > >>> account
>> > >>> name is too long to fit, the high-end ("Assets", for example) is
>> > >>> cut.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> However, in a "Split" view, the corresponding text in each split is
>> > >>> left-
>> > >>> justified - except when that part of that split is selected. This
>> > >>> means
>> > >>> that, for example, I see
>> > >>>  "Assets:Current Assets:Savings Accounts:"
>> > >>> and have to select the entry to see *which* savings account it is.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Is there any particular reason for this behaviour?
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't know, but if no one responds with a particular reason for
>> > >> leaving it
>> > >> alone, I will go ahead and change it to be right-justified.
>> > >
>> > > I have no idea why it is the way it is; I think changing it is fine.
>> >
>> > I'd suggest changing both to left-justified. Without doing anything,
>> > I'd rather see the high-order bits, the part of the path closest to
>> > the root of the account tree. I frequently have multiple leaf accounts
>> > with the same name, e.g., investments in the same mutual fund or stock
>> > in, say, my IRA and my wife's IRA.
>>
>>  Interesting situation, but I think this would NOT be a typical case,
>> and your situation would be easily addressed by adding a bit of
>> redundancy to the account name. (You could add the appropriate
>> initials to them, for example).
>
> The current state (a mix of right- and left-justification) seems
> unacceptable.

I think we all agree with that.

 I can quite easily make it consistent. Does there need to be a
> debate about left vs. right before I make the change?

Obviously I think so.

 (I'd much prefer
> right-justification personally.)

Please tell us why.

/Don

> Cheers,
> Charles