Bug 174572

Summary:	Unable to change Korganizer vertical size
Product:	[Applications] korganizer	Reporter:	Mike Bridge <mike>
Component:	general	Assignee:	kdepim bugs <kdepim-bugs>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE
Severity:	wishlist	CC:	finex, paul.achberger, smartins
Priority:	NOR	Keywords:	usability
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Platform:	Ubuntu
OS:	Linux
Latest Commit:		Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description Mike Bridge 2008-11-07 21:47:39 UTC

Version:           4.1.0 (using KDE 4.1.2)
OS:                Linux
Installed from:    Ubuntu Packages

Korganizer vertical resolution can't be changed. I recommend determining a way to lower that and hide parts of the window as needed. As it stands now, Korganizer is suboptimal for netbook use.

I'm no C wizard, but if someone feels like holding my hand, I'm willing to try and fix this myself.

Comment 1 FiNeX 2008-11-08 10:51:18 UTC

Do you mean the vertical size (height) of the korganizer window?

Comment 2 Mike Bridge 2008-11-08 16:43:53 UTC

Yes. The eee 901 has a res of 800 x 480. A good goal would be to make it look good / functional on that screen.

Comment 3 FiNeX 2008-11-19 11:18:46 UTC

Probably a lot of apps suffer of this issue.

Comment 4 Mike Bridge 2008-11-20 00:54:06 UTC

Three that i've noted so far.. Korganizer, Amarok 1.4 (Settings window,) and truecrypt. I'm not smart enough to fix this type of this, but i'd be more than willing to take a whack at it if someone can hold my hand.

Comment 5 Paul Achberger 2009-02-09 23:56:26 UTC

in kde i found only few applications that suffer this problem. adjusting the font size helps in this cases.
but it doesn't  within the "new date"-dialog of korganizer. same troubles with the adressbook if i use it embedded in kontact. --> the design seems to be too big for 9 inchers. it would be great, if the elements/setting-options were more optional/configureable/scaleable.
kontact is the greatest pim-suite, so this fix would make my eeexperience perfect.

Comment 6 Sergio Martins 2009-03-06 05:20:07 UTC

Please reply to comment #4 from bug 152085

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 152085 ***