Bill,
Honestly, I think that's horrible thinking, and you really should ask
for something to back it up. This isn't to say that something new is a bad
thing, but there is a reason why individual windows have scroll bars
(instead of one massive scroll bar for everything).
However, if that's the way that you will ultimately go, then I would
place everything on a user control, then place that control in a container
which will expose the scroll bar. Of course, you have to treat your user
control like a document, increasing/decreasing its size as appropriate for
the content and notifying the container so it can adjust its scrollbars.
But I can't emphasize enough how bad this idea is. Of course, there
could be something revolutionary that this UI is doing which would make me
change my mind, but for something as simple as an explorer-like interface
(the tree view on the left, two panes on the right), I think it will just
serve to confuse people, and irritate them.

Signature
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com
> He feels that multiple scrollbars are confusing to users and will result
> in too many support calls.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>>> I would like thoughts on this approach (pro and con), including
>>> guestimatees on level of difficulty.
Peter Duniho - 11 Jan 2008 18:29 GMT
> [...]
> But I can't emphasize enough how bad this idea is. Of course, there
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> (the tree view on the left, two panes on the right), I think it will just
> serve to confuse people, and irritate them.
For what it's worth, this design is pretty much identical to an average
frameless web page that has lists of links or other multi-column content.
Those can work reasonably well, as long as it's clear to the user what's
going on.
In other words, I don't think the idea is fundamentally flawed. Though I
would agree that doing so should be carefully considered, with some
real-world data to back up the need. Web pages usually wind up that way
because it's too hard or complex to do it any other way. Those
limitations don't exist in a regular Windows application.
If the OP _does_ decide to proceed with the design, I'd agree that a
regular UserControl with the desired controls inside it is a more
desirable design. The requirement using this technique to resize the
contained controls according to the content is going to make the
implementation messy, but at least it will present a nice,
easy-to-understand interface to the user (as opposed to multiple
scrollable controls, each without their own scroll bar but all scrolling
in tandem with each other).
Pete
Bill Fuller - 11 Jan 2008 19:26 GMT
>> [...]
>> But I can't emphasize enough how bad this idea is. Of course, there
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Pete
I appreciate everyone's thoughtful response.
I do have one question, though... what is an "OP"? :)
Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] - 11 Jan 2008 19:30 GMT
Bill,
OP = Original Poster. In this case, that would be you =)

Signature
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com
>>> [...]
>>> But I can't emphasize enough how bad this idea is. Of course, there
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> I do have one question, though... what is an "OP"? :)
Bill Fuller - 11 Jan 2008 19:59 GMT
Well, I've been called worse: =)
> Bill,
>
> OP = Original Poster. In this case, that would be you =)