fdreerf wrote:

How would the optional feature work on the Offline editor?

oof toggle it in edit > double-click run

LankyBox01 wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

How would the optional feature work on the Offline editor?

oof toggle it in edit > double-click run

That doesn't have anything to do with editing, though.

fdreerf wrote:

LankyBox01 wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

How would the optional feature work on the Offline editor?

oof toggle it in edit > double-click run

That doesn't have anything to do with editing, though.

rename edit to options, cuz restore & turbo mode are also options..?

LankyBox01 wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

LankyBox01 wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

How would the optional feature work on the Offline editor?

oof toggle it in edit > double-click run

That doesn't have anything to do with editing, though.

rename edit to options, cuz restore & turbo mode are also options..?

Undo is not an option, it is an action.

fdreerf wrote:

How would the optional feature work on the Offline editor?

i forgot the offline editor actually existed
maybe there could be an options area in the offline editor for this?

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

How would the optional feature work on the Offline editor?

i forgot the offline editor actually existed
maybe there could be an options area in the offline editor for this?

For an options area, having one option would be quite barren.

Or maybe you could just make your suggestion better instead of slapping an “it's optional!” in an effort to win over supporters which causes more problems than it answers, instead of actually addressing complaints and criticisms. Maybe the script should only run when you click on the block on the top, I don't know, but try something.

fdreerf wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

How would the optional feature work on the Offline editor?

i forgot the offline editor actually existed
maybe there could be an options area in the offline editor for this?

For an options area, having one option would be quite barren.

Or maybe you could just make your suggestion better instead of slapping an “it's optional!” in an effort to win over supporters which causes more problems than it answers, instead of actually addressing complaints and criticisms.

That's not at all what I meant to be doing, but okay I guess

They could add more than just one option. There's a ton of suggestions that request options added to account settings that effect the editor.

SUPPPOOOORRRRTTTT THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS TO ME

Bump.

Support! It's annoying to see my scripts running even though I don't wanna run them.

-Accio- wrote:

I don't have issues with accidentally clicking my scripts, so I don't see why this is required.

If you use mobile and/or touchscreen, you most certainly will accidentally click your scripts while trying to select an input.

Support. My idea before I saw this topic was to add an option to turn script clicking off. I personally think that's a better way, so you can turn it on once you're in the script-testing stage, but this is also a good idea… maybe there could be three options; one-click, two-click, and off?

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

There's a ton of suggestions that request options added to account settings that effect the editor.

And all of them are bad for that reason, because the offline editor shows us that it's not supposed to work that way.

I don't think it is big enough to go into account settings and doesn't seem that useful to me.

dertermenter wrote:

I don't think it is big enough to go into account settings and doesn't seem that useful to me.

it would be useful to people who somehow attempt to use Scratch on mobile

and also me who accidentally clicks on a script and it messes up the project

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

If you duplicate a script, then place it somewhere in a script, it runs it. It's annoying, and sometimes messses up the project.

All the time! I'll duplicate some reporter block and place it somewhere, now the stupid script is running!
This seems like too small of a feature to warrant extra customizability in the editor, so maybe this could come with other customizable features to make a whole customizing system for the editor (sorry if that sounded stupid).

fdreerf wrote:

Or maybe you could just make your suggestion better instead of slapping an “it's optional!” in an effort to win over supporters which causes more problems than it answers, instead of actually addressing complaints and criticisms. Maybe the script should only run when you click on the block on the top, I don't know, but try something.

Ok, I will admit I could've worded this a little nicer, but I still believe that making things be “optional” are the worst. It doesn't solve or improve anything, it just makes people happy. I think that nobody would really care if you had to double-click all the time, or only clicking on the hat block made it run.

fdreerf wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

Or maybe you could just make your suggestion better instead of slapping an “it's optional!” in an effort to win over supporters which causes more problems than it answers, instead of actually addressing complaints and criticisms. Maybe the script should only run when you click on the block on the top, I don't know, but try something.

Ok, I will admit I could've worded this a little nicer, but I still believe that making things be “optional” are the worst. It doesn't solve or improve anything, it just makes people happy. I think that nobody would really care if you had to double-click all the time, or only clicking on the hat block made it run.

I don't necessarily agree that all optional features are bad, and I'm sad that Scratch Team seems to feel that way too. Settings for colorblind mode, dark mode, and thinner blocks would all be great things to have available for the editor. That being said, tacking on an “it's optional” to a suggestion usually only makes the implementation more confusing unless it's something that should definitely be optional.

-Accio- wrote:

No support

This feature is useful when you want to test a specific script, and I don't have issues with accidentally clicking my scripts, so I don't see why this is required.

Agreed, no support.

han614698 wrote:

-Accio- wrote:

No support

This feature is useful when you want to test a specific script, and I don't have issues with accidentally clicking my scripts, so I don't see why this is required.

Agreed, no support.

You realize that not everyone is identical to you, and can have problems with something while you don't, right?

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

han614698 wrote:

-Accio- wrote:

No support

This feature is useful when you want to test a specific script, and I don't have issues with accidentally clicking my scripts, so I don't see why this is required.

Agreed, no support.

You realize that not everyone is identical to you, and can have problems with something while you don't, right?

Uh-yes, I do. This is all opinion, your SUPPOSED to state your opinion on this. Not what other people think. They can post themselves.