Re: [Audacity-quality] Bug: Label is removed when deleting sound
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2011-12-13 06:08:59
|
| From Bill Wharrie <bi...@go...> | Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:00:59 -0500 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Bug: Label is removed when deleting sound > On 12-Dec-11, at 2:08 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > [snip] > > > > I suggest, let's argue the best way to add an option to delete audio > > and retain labels on the Wiki (and certainly not on -devel). Then > > add to Bugzilla. > > Would this be the place? > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Proposal_Label_Enhancements > > If so, I'll try to work in a new section along the lines of "Label > deletion / retention behaviour when deleting audio with sync-lock on". > > I *really* hate it when I select up to a point label using snap-to and > the label is deleted. To hell with "consistency", I want something > that works. Yes Bill, that was my suggestion to place something there. Consistency also means predictability which has some benefits. There are use cases both to delete and not to delete the label in Steve's Case 1. I can't see a lot of use retaining the label in Case 3. I sill quite like the idea of: * Sync-Lock on but label track not selected retains the label, otherwise not. I'm not sure if that's enough for people who want to retain and move back the label (by including the label track in the selection), but can't find Sync-Lock. The above bullet point could also be thought "inconsistent". So might it be possible as an alternative to add some extra widget to the label handle to "delete label and selection" where the selection abuts a point label or one edge of a region label, otherwise retain the label? If no selection, the widget deletes the label, which is IMO too difficult as it is now. That doesn't help VI users but could be incorporated into David's idea of a context menu suggested on the above page. Gale | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:34:37 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] [Audacity-devel] Bug: Label is removed when deleting sound > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > > > > | From Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> > > | Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:28:06 -0800 (PST) > > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] [Audacity-devel] Bug: Label is removed when deleting sound > >> I really do believe that the original posting in this thread is correct > >> and that this is a *bug* and not an "enhancement request". > > > > A bug is (I think) something that happens that is not intended by > > the developer. Al intended all the behaviour we see now, I > > believe. It lacks functionality, as does for example vertical > > dragging and pasting from stereo into mono. > > > > I agree that deleting a selection in front of and touching the > > label then retaining the label is an important use case. But we > > don't IMO want to remove the ability to touch the label and delete > > the label. > > > > I suggest, let's argue the best way to add an option to delete audio > > and retain labels on the Wiki (and certainly not on -devel). Then > > add to Bugzilla. > > > > > > > > > > Gale > > I'm also unconvinced about it being a "bug". > As far as I can see, the behaviour IS consistent with point and region labels. > > Case 1 > Point label at time = 2 seconds (sync-lock enabled) > Select from t=1 to t=2 (the end of the selection goes right up to the label) > Delete - point label is deleted. > > Case 2 > Region label from t=2 to t=3 (sync-lock enabled) > Select from t=1 to t=2 (the end of the selection goes right up to the > START of the label) > Delete - as expected the region label is not deleted. > > Case 3 > Region label from t=2 to t=3 (sync-lock enabled) > Select from t=1 to t=3 (the end of the selection goes right up to the > END of the label) > Delete - region label is deleted. > > The odd one out is case 2, where the (region) label is clearly NOT > INCLUDED in the selection. > > The debatable question is whether a selection "includes" or "does not > include" the selection boundary. > The current behaviour is consistent with the idea that the selection > boundary IS part of the selection. > > However I do agree that it would be more useful if the point label in > case 1 was not included in the selection, but then for consistency the > region label in case 3 would also need to survive the deletion - would > we want that? > > Steve |