Thanks for that Kory. There should be an enhancement request from Esri Australia in the mix at Esri Inc as well.
I do find that thread a bit concerning. Have you read it through?
Why are Esri staff asking users UI design questions without mentioning/using an objective UX validation process? By Esri: "Thanks for your comment. So, I guess you wish........". Seriously?
The fact that the thread exists and the current outcome seems to require user interaction to fix the issue temporarily demonstrates that there is a lack of skill and understanding regarding UI & UX in the Pro dev team.
Think about it:
Current Problem = Due to status messages (unnecessary?) Tool window is too small to get directly to the primary interaction space.
Current ArcMap Equivalent = Move to and Click in primary interaction space - no issue. (see note below)
Current solution = Move mouse and scroll. Move to and Click in interaction space.
New Proposed Solution = Move mouse. Click and Drag to required size. Move to and Click in interaction space. Application will retain user preferences.
Seems good doesn't it? Single task equivalent performance is down the drain!
Take a step back and look at it at a higher level. Looking at Pro as a whole how often do saved UI layout changes bomb out?
Every now & then a window will show up in a completely random location after being closed.
Further to this how will this process work when you have two Pro sessions open and changes are made in one only. Does the sequence in which you open & close the sessions matter as they do in ArcMap?
Where will the settings be saved? In the AGOL/Portal user account or on the local machine? I use multiple devices and keeping all the settings to make it more productive in sync is a pain.
Wouldn't you agree that optimising the layout of the window to remove any required user interaction to be a better solution?
If Esri is serious about this maybe there should be a specific Bugs Exchange for UI & UX.
(This is a bug and to call fixing it an idea is insulting to paying customers)
Bring a qualified UI designer and UX tester into that exchange and have them interact with users in a structured way while compiling sensible metrics and processes for the application design team AS WELL AS creating improved training material for users -> if platform limitations prevent efficient and intuitive design you have to educate.
Notes - to provide further context
ArcMap Note:
The Pro toolset/dialog is much more powerful than in ArcMap but, for most users, most of the time the ArcMap window is fine and efficient.
Allow resize & save window Note:
This has memory and processing implications. Having a resizable window can be a good thing and retaining the settings more so.
In my view this is an enhancement that needs to be evaluated in complimentary context to the size issue as it has a non-trivial system and architecture impact. This thread is about Pro performance and the noted proposed solution to the window size issue is pitting UI/UX changes against system resources.
This stuff is complicated!