audacity-quality

[Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
| Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:26:34 -0700
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] select behavior weird?
> On 8/12/2010 3:39 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> > 
> > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
> > | Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:13:40 -0700
> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] select behavior weird?
>
> ... I think the target is the same size as the icon that was in the
> TrackInfo menu, i.e., 12x12. Even the overlay tile is just 27x27.
> Attached is a monochrome mockup clock-in-lock at 12x12.

When the icon is in the Track Panel, could it have a hover tooltip "This
track is sync-locked"  or "Tracks with this icon are sync-locked"? It 
might help, given I still think a clock (even with a lock) could mean just 
about anything. Looking at the icon made me think of Timer Record.

I have to say (my eyes aren't young any more) I can barely perceive 
the padlock (at 12 x 12), and probably wouldn't realise it was a lock 
if I didn't know. 


> > Perhaps though a more circular chain could contain the clock? 
> 
> I think that would make it look unlike a chain link, and like a clock
> with tags.

If I come up with any ideas that look reasonable at 12 x 12, I'll post 
a mock-up. I have some sort of an idea for a clock with arrows <-   -> 
either side to possibly be a mnemonic for horizontal track movement.   


> >>>> * Combining the icon with the Time Shift Tool and Multi-Tool icon
> >>>>     in Tools Toolbar might be difficult
> >>>>
> >>
> >> I think that's true of adding anything to them. Are there any cases
> >> currently where we decorate them?
> > 
> > AFAIK, only when they are selected (meaning that you tab into them).
> > They then have a dotted border that makes a bit less space to work 
> > with. 
> > 
> 
> I don't know that behavior and it's not in the manual. When I select
> either, they just show down/selected, and tab doesn't have an effect.

It's an accessibility feature, which is where it primarily should be 
documented:
http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Accessibility

Launch Audacity and generate a tone. Then do CTRL + SHIFT + F6.
That will move selection backwards into "Skip to Start" in Control
Toolbar, as shown by the dotted border. TAB will now move that
selection through the Control Toolbar buttons into Tools Toolbar. 

Had you done CTRL + F6, that would have moved selection into the 
Selection Toolbar. 





Gale 

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[David B. <drb...@go...>]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>

>> > AFAIK, only when they are selected (meaning that you tab into them).
>> > They then have a dotted border that makes a bit less space to work
>> > with.
>> >
>>
>> I don't know that behavior and it's not in the manual. When I select
>> either, they just show down/selected, and tab doesn't have an effect.
>
> It's an accessibility feature, which is where it primarily should be
> documented:
> http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Accessibility

Using a dotted border is a standard way to indicate that a control has
the keyboard focus, and so doesn't need to be documented in Audacity,

David.

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Vaughan J. <va...@au...>]

On 8/13/2010 2:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> 
> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
> | Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:26:34 -0700
> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] select behavior weird?
>> On 8/12/2010 3:39 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
>>> | Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:13:40 -0700
>>> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] select behavior weird?
>>
>> ... I think the target is the same size as the icon that was in the
>> TrackInfo menu, i.e., 12x12. Even the overlay tile is just 27x27.
>> Attached is a monochrome mockup clock-in-lock at 12x12.
> 
> When the icon is in the Track Panel, could it have a hover tooltip "This
> track is sync-locked"  or "Tracks with this icon are sync-locked"? It 
> might help, given I still think a clock (even with a lock) could mean just 
> about anything. Looking at the icon made me think of Timer Record.

Sure. But I think just "Sync-Locked" as it appears on tracks, so we
don't need to mention tracks.


> 
> I have to say (my eyes aren't young any more) I can barely perceive 
> the padlock (at 12 x 12), and probably wouldn't realise it was a lock 
> if I didn't know. 

Yes, it's really tiny. Might be able to make it a few pixels bigger. Al
had put the 12x12 on the menu, but it really should be separate. That's
why I suggested making the track-minimize button a little less wide and
putting the icon next to it. And that should allow it to be as high as
the track-minimize button.


> 
> 
>>> Perhaps though a more circular chain could contain the clock? 
>>
>> I think that would make it look unlike a chain link, and like a clock
>> with tags.
> 
> If I come up with any ideas that look reasonable at 12 x 12, I'll post 
> a mock-up. I have some sort of an idea for a clock with arrows <-   -> 
> either side to possibly be a mnemonic for horizontal track movement.   
> 
> 
>>>>>> * Combining the icon with the Time Shift Tool and Multi-Tool icon
>>>>>>     in Tools Toolbar might be difficult
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that's true of adding anything to them. Are there any cases
>>>> currently where we decorate them?
>>>
>>> AFAIK, only when they are selected (meaning that you tab into them).
>>> They then have a dotted border that makes a bit less space to work 
>>> with. 
>>>
>>
>> I don't know that behavior and it's not in the manual. When I select
>> either, they just show down/selected, and tab doesn't have an effect.
> 
> It's an accessibility feature, which is where it primarily should be 
> documented:
> http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Accessibility
> 
> Launch Audacity and generate a tone. Then do CTRL + SHIFT + F6.
> That will move selection backwards into "Skip to Start" in Control
> Toolbar, as shown by the dotted border. TAB will now move that
> selection through the Control Toolbar buttons into Tools Toolbar. 
> 
> Had you done CTRL + F6, that would have moved selection into the 
> Selection Toolbar. 
> 

Thanks. I usually use mouse for those operations.

- Vaughan

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
| Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:39:50 -0700
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?
> On 8/13/2010 2:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> > I have to say (my eyes aren't young any more) I can barely perceive 
> > the padlock (at 12 x 12), and probably wouldn't realise it was a lock 
> > if I didn't know. 
> 
> Yes, it's really tiny. Might be able to make it a few pixels bigger. Al
> had put the 12x12 on the menu, but it really should be separate. That's
> why I suggested making the track-minimize button a little less wide and
> putting the icon next to it. And that should allow it to be as high as
> the track-minimize button.

I quite like that idea of putting the icon to right of a less wide roll-up
button, with the possible drawback that it might look odd if user 
always has linking off. I wouldn't mind personally if the button was 
a little taller as I often just miss it when trying to click it. 

I suppose in future though if we go for defining groups other than by 
labels, a reserved space for an area to click on to add a track to a 
group (and to display an icon) might make sense. Possibly that icon 
could be there all the time, but a button? 

For now, whether the icon is in the roll-up button or outside it, I still 
think it's somewhat below line of sight if you have tall tracks, or even 
a stereo track. If the top line of the track info just had the rate (so the 
next line had format and stereo or mono), then it might be possible to 
put the icon to right of the rate. It would then always have the same
vertical position in the track panel whatever the height.   





Gale 

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Vaughan J. <va...@au...>]

On 8/16/2010 3:05 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> 
> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
> | Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:39:50 -0700
>> On 8/13/2010 2:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
>>> I have to say (my eyes aren't young any more) I can barely perceive 
>>> the padlock (at 12 x 12), and probably wouldn't realise it was a lock 
>>> if I didn't know. 
>>
>> Yes, it's really tiny. Might be able to make it a few pixels bigger. Al
>> had put the 12x12 on the menu, but it really should be separate. That's
>> why I suggested making the track-minimize button a little less wide and
>> putting the icon next to it. And that should allow it to be as high as
>> the track-minimize button.
> 
> I quite like that idea of putting the icon to right of a less wide roll-up
> button, with the possible drawback that it might look odd if user 
> always has linking off. 

I made it change the width of the minimize button depending on whether
sync-lock is on.

As it is not a button, can't put a tooltip on it, per your suggestion. I
suppose it could be made a button, each of which also turns on/off
sync-lock... Low priority at this time, imo.

- Vaughan

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Martyn S. <mar...@gm...>]

On 19:59, Vaughan Johnson wrote:
> On 8/16/2010 3:05 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
>>
>> | From Vaughan Johnson<va...@au...>
>> | Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:39:50 -0700
>>> On 8/13/2010 2:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
>>>> I have to say (my eyes aren't young any more) I can barely perceive
>>>> the padlock (at 12 x 12), and probably wouldn't realise it was a lock
>>>> if I didn't know.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's really tiny. Might be able to make it a few pixels bigger. Al
>>> had put the 12x12 on the menu, but it really should be separate. That's
>>> why I suggested making the track-minimize button a little less wide and
>>> putting the icon next to it. And that should allow it to be as high as
>>> the track-minimize button.
>>
>> I quite like that idea of putting the icon to right of a less wide roll-up
>> button, with the possible drawback that it might look odd if user
>> always has linking off.
>
> I made it change the width of the minimize button depending on whether
> sync-lock is on.

I quite like this.

> As it is not a button, can't put a tooltip on it, per your suggestion. I
> suppose it could be made a button, each of which also turns on/off
> sync-lock... Low priority at this time, imo.

Low priority indeed, but...
If it was a button, clicking it would presumably turn linking off, 
thus removing the button.  So no way to turn it back on? ;-)

And clicking on it still has the roll-up/down functionality of the 
minimize button - intentional or a (very minor) bug?

Also I can see the linking background on tracks that aren't selected 
but on ones that are I see a grey bg without links.  I haven't 
followed this thread too closely so I don't know if this is normal or 
a problem.

TTFN
Martyn

> - Vaughan
>
>
>

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> 
| Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:28:47 +0100
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?
> On 19:59, Vaughan Johnson wrote:
> > On 8/16/2010 3:05 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> >>
> >> | From Vaughan Johnson<va...@au...>
> >> | Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:39:50 -0700
> >>> On 8/13/2010 2:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> >>>> I have to say (my eyes aren't young any more) I can barely perceive
> >>>> the padlock (at 12 x 12), and probably wouldn't realise it was a lock
> >>>> if I didn't know.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, it's really tiny. Might be able to make it a few pixels bigger. Al
> >>> had put the 12x12 on the menu, but it really should be separate. That's
> >>> why I suggested making the track-minimize button a little less wide and
> >>> putting the icon next to it. And that should allow it to be as high as
> >>> the track-minimize button.
> >>
> >> I quite like that idea of putting the icon to right of a less wide roll-up
> >> button, with the possible drawback that it might look odd if user
> >> always has linking off.
> >
> > I made it change the width of the minimize button depending on whether
> > sync-lock is on.
> 
> I quite like this.
> 
> > As it is not a button, can't put a tooltip on it, per your suggestion. I
> > suppose it could be made a button, each of which also turns on/off
> > sync-lock... Low priority at this time, imo.
> 
> Low priority indeed, but...
> If it was a button, clicking it would presumably turn linking off, 
> thus removing the button.  So no way to turn it back on? ;-)
> 
> And clicking on it still has the roll-up/down functionality of the 
> minimize button - intentional or a (very minor) bug?

I think it's a problem as it is now. I like the icon reducing the width of the
collapse button. It gives an extra visual clue that enabling sync-lock has 
"done something", and that it's "on". But because it's inlaid, I think it 
already "looks" like too much like a button, so will get clicked on when the
user doesn't want to collapse the track.  

So if it isn't a button, can it just be an overlay with no separator between it
and the button, so making it obvious that clicking the entire width will 
collapse?  I don't mind it doing so then, in fact it may have an advantage of 
making the collapse button easier to "hit". 

Can VI users "hear" the sync-lock is on without a tooltip, or is it redundant for
them to hear that or not for each track?

If it was a button, I would assume it would highlight when depressed? I think .
the problem with a button is that given every other track panel control is per
track, it might look as if the button was meant to take that track in/out of a
group (no buttons depressed means there is no linking). 

Could we have a default shortcut for toggling Sync-Lock (suggest CTRL +
SHIFT +L)?  I think power users who have it on might also quite often 
want to turn it off temporarily to perform a custom timeline changing 
action on one track, or as an easier to way remove an unwanted label
without affecting the audio.  

  
> Also I can see the linking background on tracks that aren't selected 
> but on ones that are I see a grey bg without links.  I haven't 
> followed this thread too closely so I don't know if this is normal or 
> a problem.

I think that's correct. The selected tracks will have all commands applied 
to them. The unselected tracks with the tiles will only be affected if the
command would otherwise desync those tracks.

I have though been hearing some confusion reported about what the track
icon actually "means": 

1 Because each track on its own is a group (so, generate a first track and 
   it has an icon), the icon can give the impression it's a "repeater" for the
   linking button on the toolbar. So it can be unsettling that deselecting a 
   sole track removes the icon even though linking is still on. 

2 When you select (in) all tracks there are as Martyn says no tiles in the
   waveform, but you still see the link icon in the tracks, which makes
   people think it is a toolbar icon repeater after all

So I think the track icon's meaning is a bit hard to document right now. 
Perhaps it should a) either repeat the waveform tiles (which as per 2 it 
doesn't) or b) just indicate if a track is *potentially* in a group when 
linking is on? 

If b), I don't much like the icon disappearing when track is unselected. I
appreciate we may be saying that merely selecting a track puts it in a 
group, but this idea loses clarity for me given the icon must disappear 
when linking is off, yet the selected tracks respond identically whether
linking is off or not. 

BTW do Time Tracks and Note Tracks have any meaning with linking on?
Both sorts of tracks display the track linking icon when selected as per
above, but don't display linking behaviour. In fact you can't select track 
in a Time Track at all.   





Gale 

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Vaughan J. <va...@au...>]

On 8/24/2010 10:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> 
> | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> 
> | Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:28:47 +0100
> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?
>> On 19:59, Vaughan Johnson wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2010 3:05 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
>>>>
>>>> | From Vaughan Johnson<va...@au...>
>>>> | Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:39:50 -0700
>>>>> On 8/13/2010 2:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
>>>>>> I have to say (my eyes aren't young any more) I can barely perceive
>>>>>> the padlock (at 12 x 12), and probably wouldn't realise it was a lock
>>>>>> if I didn't know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it's really tiny. Might be able to make it a few pixels bigger. Al
>>>>> had put the 12x12 on the menu, but it really should be separate. That's
>>>>> why I suggested making the track-minimize button a little less wide and
>>>>> putting the icon next to it. And that should allow it to be as high as
>>>>> the track-minimize button.
>>>>
>>>> I quite like that idea of putting the icon to right of a less wide roll-up
>>>> button, with the possible drawback that it might look odd if user
>>>> always has linking off.
>>>
>>> I made it change the width of the minimize button depending on whether
>>> sync-lock is on.
>>
>> I quite like this.
>>
>>> As it is not a button, can't put a tooltip on it, per your suggestion. I
>>> suppose it could be made a button, each of which also turns on/off
>>> sync-lock... Low priority at this time, imo.
>>
>> Low priority indeed, but...
>> If it was a button, clicking it would presumably turn linking off, 
>> thus removing the button.  So no way to turn it back on? ;-)
>>
>> And clicking on it still has the roll-up/down functionality of the 
>> minimize button - intentional or a (very minor) bug?
> 
> I think it's a problem as it is now. I like the icon reducing the width of the
> collapse button. It gives an extra visual clue that enabling sync-lock has 
> "done something", and that it's "on". But because it's inlaid, I think it 
> already "looks" like too much like a button, so will get clicked on when the
> user doesn't want to collapse the track.  
> 
> So if it isn't a button, can it just be an overlay with no separator between it
> and the button, so making it obvious that clicking the entire width will 
> collapse?  I don't mind it doing so then, in fact it may have an advantage of 
> making the collapse button easier to "hit". 

Interesting. It's precisely because it's inlaid that it does not look
like a button to me. Buttons have beveled edges and it has none. It
currently has no separator between it and the button -- rather the
button has beveled edges and that's the right-side beveled edge of the
button. Whether the gain/pan pane above it should have a bevel is
another question, but I didn't change that, and didn't add any edges
around the icon.

That's what was cognitively wrong (separate from the functional issue of
crowding the track name) with having the icon in the title bar -- it had
nothing at all to do with the title or the menu.

Now that I've fixed the bug Martyn noticed, it's doing the right thing.
It has nothing to do with the minimize function, so clicking on it
should not (un)minimize, and it should not appear as part of the
minimize button. Things that are unrelated should not be overlaid -- it
just causes confusion by conflating unrelated ideas.

And as tiny as the icon is, it reduces the hit-ability of the minimize
button minimally.



> 
> Can VI users "hear" the sync-lock is on without a tooltip, or is it redundant for
> them to hear that or not for each track?

I have no idea. But this change should have no effect on whether they
can -- there was no tooltip before, nor anything associated with the
track overlay.


> 
> If it was a button, I would assume it would highlight when depressed? I think .
> the problem with a button is that given every other track panel control is per
> track, it might look as if the button was meant to take that track in/out of a
> group (no buttons depressed means there is no linking). 

More good reasons to not make it a button.


> 
> Could we have a default shortcut for toggling Sync-Lock (suggest CTRL +
> SHIFT +L)?  I think power users who have it on might also quite often 
> want to turn it off temporarily to perform a custom timeline changing 
> action on one track, or as an easier to way remove an unwanted label
> without affecting the audio.  

Good suggestion. Unfortunately, the CommandManager::AddCheck() methods
do not currently allow it. Not hard to implement, but time-consuming, as
there are 15 calls to those methods and I'd have to check all of them.
Please put it as part of the new bug I suggest below.


> 
>   
>> Also I can see the linking background on tracks that aren't selected 
>> but on ones that are I see a grey bg without links.  I haven't 
>> followed this thread too closely so I don't know if this is normal or 
>> a problem.
> 
> I think that's correct. The selected tracks will have all commands applied 
> to them. The unselected tracks with the tiles will only be affected if the
> command would otherwise desync those tracks.
> 
> I have though been hearing some confusion reported about what the track
> icon actually "means": 
> 
> 1 Because each track on its own is a group (so, generate a first track and 
>    it has an icon), the icon can give the impression it's a "repeater" for the
>    linking button on the toolbar. So it can be unsettling that deselecting a 
>    sole track removes the icon even though linking is still on. 
> 
> 2 When you select (in) all tracks there are as Martyn says no tiles in the
>    waveform, but you still see the link icon in the tracks, which makes
>    people think it is a toolbar icon repeater after all

Don't know what you mean by "repeater".


> 
> So I think the track icon's meaning is a bit hard to document right now. 
> Perhaps it should a) either repeat the waveform tiles (which as per 2 it 
> doesn't) or b) just indicate if a track is *potentially* in a group when 
> linking is on? 

It means the track(s) is/are in a group that has at least one selected
track, and the others are sync-lock selected.

You can quote me on that. :-)


> 
> If b), I don't much like the icon disappearing when track is unselected. I
> appreciate we may be saying that merely selecting a track puts it in a 
> group, but this idea loses clarity for me given the icon must disappear 
> when linking is off, yet the selected tracks respond identically whether
> linking is off or not. 

But the sync-lock selected track(s) behave differently when sync-lock is
off or on. I thought this had all be hashed out when Al made his
changes. Do you have a suggestion?

Also, may I ask you to please stop calling it "link" and use "sync-lock"
instead? That's why I went through the code and changed the four/five
different terms for the one feature to be one term. Thanks.


> 
> BTW do Time Tracks and Note Tracks have any meaning with linking on?
> Both sorts of tracks display the track linking icon when selected as per
> above, but don't display linking behaviour. In fact you can't select track 
> in a Time Track at all.   
> 

Good point. It looks like they were never explicitly considered in any
of the sync-lock code. SyncLockedTracksIterator just checks for Wave and
Label tracks.

They break the rule about groups being delimited by label tracks, too.
Looks to me like they're always in a single-track group. Please enter a
bug for this.

Thanks,
Vaughan

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
| Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:20:30 -0700
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?
> > On 8/24/2010 10:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> > > | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> 
> > > | Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:28:47 +0100
> > > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?
> > > On 19:59, Vaughan Johnson wrote:
> > > I quite like this.
> >>
> >>> As it is not a button, can't put a tooltip on it, per your suggestion. I
> >>> suppose it could be made a button, each of which also turns on/off
> >>> sync-lock... Low priority at this time, imo.
> >>
> >> Low priority indeed, but...
> >> If it was a button, clicking it would presumably turn linking off, 
> >> thus removing the button.  So no way to turn it back on? ;-)
> >>
> >> And clicking on it still has the roll-up/down functionality of the 
> >> minimize button - intentional or a (very minor) bug?
> > 
> > I think it's a problem as it is now. I like the icon reducing the width of the
> > collapse button. It gives an extra visual clue that enabling sync-lock has 
> > "done something", and that it's "on". But because it's inlaid, I think it 
> > already "looks" like too much like a button, so will get clicked on when the
> > user doesn't want to collapse the track.  
> > 
> > So if it isn't a button, can it just be an overlay with no separator between it
> > and the button, so making it obvious that clicking the entire width will 
> > collapse?  I don't mind it doing so then, in fact it may have an advantage of 
> > making the collapse button easier to "hit". 
> 
> Interesting. It's precisely because it's inlaid that it does not look
> like a button to me. Buttons have beveled edges and it has none. It
> currently has no separator between it and the button -- rather the
> button has beveled edges and that's the right-side beveled edge of the
> button. Whether the gain/pan pane above it should have a bevel is
> another question, but I didn't change that, and didn't add any edges
> around the icon.
> 
> That's what was cognitively wrong (separate from the functional issue of
> crowding the track name) with having the icon in the title bar -- it had
> nothing at all to do with the title or the menu.
> 
> Now that I've fixed the bug Martyn noticed, it's doing the right thing.
> It has nothing to do with the minimize function, so clicking on it
> should not (un)minimize, and it should not appear as part of the
> minimize button. Things that are unrelated should not be overlaid -- it
> just causes confusion by conflating unrelated ideas.

The only problem with that is the icon is still being taken as a button (by 
people who are writing to me, anyway) and I think that is possibly a 
worse confusion than overlaying unrelated items. It does (to me) look
as if the icon is depressed below the level of both the collapse button
and the body of the track panel.  

If it was me, I would remove the horizontal line above the icon (if it can
be done). Then it would more clearly be part of the body of the track 
panel and even more clearly separate from the collapse button. 


> >> Also I can see the linking background on tracks that aren't selected 
> >> but on ones that are I see a grey bg without links.  I haven't 
> >> followed this thread too closely so I don't know if this is normal or 
> >> a problem.
> > 
> > I think that's correct. The selected tracks will have all commands applied 
> > to them. The unselected tracks with the tiles will only be affected if the
> > command would otherwise desync those tracks.
> > 
> > I have though been hearing some confusion reported about what the track
> > icon actually "means": 
> > 
> > 1 Because each track on its own is a group (so, generate a first track and 
> >    it has an icon), the icon can give the impression it's a "repeater" for the
> >    linking button on the toolbar. So it can be unsettling that deselecting a 
> >    sole track removes the icon even though linking is still on. 
> > 
> > 2 When you select (in) all tracks there are as Martyn says no tiles in the
> >    waveform, but you still see the link icon in the tracks, which makes
> >    people think it is a toolbar icon repeater after all
> 
> Don't know what you mean by "repeater".

I mean an icon that reacts in sympathy to (repeats) the "sync-lock" button 
in Edit Toolbar (when that button is up, there is no icon in the Track Panel).  


> > So I think the track icon's meaning is a bit hard to document right now. 
> > Perhaps it should a) either repeat the waveform tiles (which as per 2 it 
> > doesn't) or b) just indicate if a track is *potentially* in a group when 
> > linking is on? 
> 
> It means the track(s) is/are in a group that has at least one selected
> track, and the others are sync-lock selected.

It can mean that, or it can also mean that all the tracks are fully selected
(none have waveform tiles). So if you had two audio tracks above each 
other with a selection in one, then drag the selection into the other, there
is the slight problem of intuition that the the tiles have gone from the
waveform, but remain in the track panel icons.     
 

> > If b), I don't much like the icon disappearing when track is unselected. I
> > appreciate we may be saying that merely selecting a track puts it in a 
> > group, but this idea loses clarity for me given the icon must disappear 
> > when linking is off, yet the selected tracks respond identically whether
> > linking is off or not. 
> 
> But the sync-lock selected track(s) behave differently when sync-lock is
> off or on. 

Granted. But to give an example someone gave me, you have from top to 
bottom of a project, two audio tracks, a label track and another audio 
track. Click in the bottom track. It has the track panel icon, so it's in a
group (leaving aside whether a track on its own should be a group, I'm 
increasingly thinking not if we revisit this). How do you now know the 
three unselected tracks above are in a group if you don't know the logic 
that determines that? 

Of course, if you have two audio tracks underneath the label track then
you have two groups. So if you were to mark "potential groups" which is 
IMO the more intuitive thing to describe, you would have to distinguish 
group one from group two. That's why I always thought it was better to 
separate each group visually in some way (James's idea to have a
horizontal gap between groups, or have lines enclosing them, or display
a "group number" like a track number).  This also gets rid of the problem 
of the icon remaining in the track panel when the tiles disappear from the
waveform.  


> Do you have a suggestion?

See a) and b) and methods of visually defining groups as above (though 
I'm not sure I like a) all that much). 

I can certainly work with a description that sees a group as something
that is intermittent and defined by having at least one of its tracks 
selected, and I am fine with what happens in the waveform (except 
there should be a sync-selected cursor as well as a region).  I just
wanted to raise comments that have been made so as to query if the 
cases where the track icon displays are really what we want. 

The other point that has come out of feedback is that longer term we 
need to reinstate some way of having some of the visible tracks in a 
group but not others (other than turning sync-lock on an off). 

PS my fingers/arms are telling me why I prefer typing "link" to
"sync-lock"...  





Gale 

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Al D. <bus...@gm...>]

On Friday, September 03, 2010 23:50:45 Gale Andrews wrote:
> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...>
> | Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:20:30 -0700
> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior
> | weird?
> | 
> > > On 8/24/2010 10:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> > > > | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...>
> > > > | Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:28:47 +0100
> > > > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select
> > > > | behavior weird?
> > > > 
> > > > On 19:59, Vaughan Johnson wrote:
> > > > I quite like this.
> > > > 
> > >>> As it is not a button, can't put a tooltip on it, per your
> > >>> suggestion. I suppose it could be made a button, each of
> > >>> which also turns on/off sync-lock... Low priority at this
> > >>> time, imo.
> > >> 
> > >> Low priority indeed, but...
> > >> If it was a button, clicking it would presumably turn linking
> > >> off, thus removing the button.  So no way to turn it back on?
> > >> ;-)
> > >> 
> > >> And clicking on it still has the roll-up/down functionality of
> > >> the minimize button - intentional or a (very minor) bug?
> > > 
> > > I think it's a problem as it is now. I like the icon reducing
> > > the width of the collapse button. It gives an extra visual
> > > clue that enabling sync-lock has "done something", and that
> > > it's "on". But because it's inlaid, I think it already "looks"
> > > like too much like a button, so will get clicked on when the
> > > user doesn't want to collapse the track.
> > > 
> > > So if it isn't a button, can it just be an overlay with no
> > > separator between it and the button, so making it obvious that
> > > clicking the entire width will collapse?  I don't mind it
> > > doing so then, in fact it may have an advantage of making the
> > > collapse button easier to "hit".
> > 
> > Interesting. It's precisely because it's inlaid that it does not
> > look like a button to me. Buttons have beveled edges and it has
> > none. It currently has no separator between it and the button --
> > rather the button has beveled edges and that's the right-side
> > beveled edge of the button. Whether the gain/pan pane above it
> > should have a bevel is another question, but I didn't change
> > that, and didn't add any edges around the icon.
> > 
> > That's what was cognitively wrong (separate from the functional
> > issue of crowding the track name) with having the icon in the
> > title bar -- it had nothing at all to do with the title or the
> > menu.
> > 
> > Now that I've fixed the bug Martyn noticed, it's doing the right
> > thing. It has nothing to do with the minimize function, so
> > clicking on it should not (un)minimize, and it should not appear
> > as part of the minimize button. Things that are unrelated should
> > not be overlaid -- it just causes confusion by conflating
> > unrelated ideas.
> 
> The only problem with that is the icon is still being taken as a
> button (by people who are writing to me, anyway) and I think that
> is possibly a worse confusion than overlaying unrelated items. It
> does (to me) look as if the icon is depressed below the level of
> both the collapse button and the body of the track panel.
> 
> If it was me, I would remove the horizontal line above the icon (if
> it can be done). Then it would more clearly be part of the body of
> the track panel and even more clearly separate from the collapse
> button.
> 
> > >> Also I can see the linking background on tracks that aren't
> > >> selected but on ones that are I see a grey bg without links. 
> > >> I haven't followed this thread too closely so I don't know if
> > >> this is normal or a problem.
> > > 
> > > I think that's correct. The selected tracks will have all
> > > commands applied to them. The unselected tracks with the tiles
> > > will only be affected if the command would otherwise desync
> > > those tracks.
> > > 
> > > I have though been hearing some confusion reported about what
> > > the track icon actually "means":
> > > 
> > > 1 Because each track on its own is a group (so, generate a
> > > first track and
> > > 
> > >    it has an icon), the icon can give the impression it's a
> > >    "repeater" for the linking button on the toolbar. So it can
> > >    be unsettling that deselecting a sole track removes the
> > >    icon even though linking is still on.
> > > 
> > > 2 When you select (in) all tracks there are as Martyn says no
> > > tiles in the
> > > 
> > >    waveform, but you still see the link icon in the tracks,
> > >    which makes people think it is a toolbar icon repeater
> > >    after all
> > 
> > Don't know what you mean by "repeater".
> 
> I mean an icon that reacts in sympathy to (repeats) the "sync-lock"
> button in Edit Toolbar (when that button is up, there is no icon
> in the Track Panel).
> 
> > > So I think the track icon's meaning is a bit hard to document
> > > right now. Perhaps it should a) either repeat the waveform
> > > tiles (which as per 2 it doesn't) or b) just indicate if a
> > > track is *potentially* in a group when linking is on?
> > 
> > It means the track(s) is/are in a group that has at least one
> > selected track, and the others are sync-lock selected.
> 
> It can mean that, or it can also mean that all the tracks are fully
> selected (none have waveform tiles). So if you had two audio
> tracks above each other with a selection in one, then drag the
> selection into the other, there is the slight problem of intuition
> that the the tiles have gone from the waveform, but remain in the
> track panel icons.
> 

It makes sense if you think of the set of sync-locked tracks as a 
superset of the set of selected tracks. That's how we work internally, 
so thinking about it any other way is likely to be confusing.

From a practical perspective, the current scheme correlates all tracks 
that will be affected by inserting or removing audio. That's why it's 
useful to have.

> > > If b), I don't much like the icon disappearing when track is
> > > unselected. I appreciate we may be saying that merely
> > > selecting a track puts it in a group, but this idea loses
> > > clarity for me given the icon must disappear when linking is
> > > off, yet the selected tracks respond identically whether
> > > linking is off or not.
> > 
> > But the sync-lock selected track(s) behave differently when
> > sync-lock is off or on.
> 
> Granted. But to give an example someone gave me, you have from top
> to bottom of a project, two audio tracks, a label track and
> another audio track. Click in the bottom track. It has the track
> panel icon, so it's in a group (leaving aside whether a track on
> its own should be a group, I'm increasingly thinking not if we
> revisit this).

Let's not revisit this. I don't care what a thousand users say unless 
someone says something that makes sense. It's more natural and elegant 
that groups can consist of just one track (providing that it's not 
especially natural or elegant for groups to be divided by label 
tracks).

> How do you now know the three unselected tracks
> above are in a group if you don't know the logic that determines
> that?
> 

You don't know, but it doesn't matter. The fact that they are in a 
group becomes important when one of them becomes selected. Only then 
is it necessary to notify the user that they will be changed in the 
event of insertion or removal of audio.

The fact that the three tracks form a specific group is always notable. 
That is, it could be good to give users a view of which tracks are 
grouped regardless of the selection. But that needs to be something 
that allows the user to differentiate between the groups: bracketing or 
color-coding might work, removing the gap between tracks within the 
same group might work.

The sync-lock icon is a binary marker. Having all tracks in any group 
marked with it doesn't help the user differentiate between groups, and 
doesn't help the user differentiate between tracks that will and won't 
be affected by insertions and removals of audio. In many projects all 
the tracks would show the icon all the time. And that's pointless. 
It's like marking a seating chart of a legislative body according to 
whether the legislator belongs to a political party or not (not to 
take the political metaphor too seriously, just using the abstraction 
of people divided into groups). A chart differentiating between all the 
parties is useful (bracketing, color-coding, removing gaps). A chart 
showing which members belong to some specific coalition is useful (the 
binary sync-lock icon).

> Of course, if you have two audio tracks underneath the label track
> then you have two groups. So if you were to mark "potential
> groups" which is IMO the more intuitive thing to describe, 

There's no such thing as a "potential group". The track list is 
divided into groups that don't change when the selection changes.

> you
> would have to distinguish group one from group two. That's why I
> always thought it was better to separate each group visually in
> some way (James's idea to have a horizontal gap between groups, or
> have lines enclosing them, or display a "group number" like a
> track number).  This also gets rid of the problem of the icon
> remaining in the track panel when the tiles disappear from the
> waveform.
> 
> > Do you have a suggestion?
> 
> See a) and b) and methods of visually defining groups as above
> (though I'm not sure I like a) all that much).
> 
> I can certainly work with a description that sees a group as
> something that is intermittent and defined by having at least one
> of its tracks selected, 

That's what we don't want to do. The principle of operation doesn't 
change according to the UI. The UI is a reflection of how the internals 
work. It provides users information on state and lets them make 
changes. It's imperfect, because everything is imperfect, and doesn't 
currently have a scheme to show groups. But the documentation should 
be clear that groups don't change along with the selection. Think of 
the legislature metaphor: coalitions between parties can form and 
break down depending on what's being discussed, but the legislators 
are always members of their own parties.

> and I am fine with what happens in the
> waveform (except there should be a sync-selected cursor as well as
> a region).  I just wanted to raise comments that have been made so
> as to query if the cases where the track icon displays are really
> what we want.
> 
> The other point that has come out of feedback is that longer term
> we need to reinstate some way of having some of the visible tracks
> in a group but not others (other than turning sync-lock on an
> off).
> 

We've always known this. Some day when someone has time to work out 
the UI issues we can do something that's not awful. For now they're 
going to have to separate groups with label tracks.

Big point of all this: I think the sync-lock feature is on a 
reasonably solid foundation (with the caveat that we'd like to be able 
to choose group membership more flexibly). I want to be sure we're 
communicating the actual operation of the program effectively through 
the UI, so we don't end up having the tail wag the dog, changing 
around our editing primitives based on what people want to see.

 - Al

> PS my fingers/arms are telling me why I prefer typing "link" to
> "sync-lock"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gale
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------- This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
> 
> Show off your parallel programming skills.
> Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> Aud...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality

Re: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Al Dimond <bus...@gm...> 
| Sat, 4 Sep 2010 01:45:10 -0700
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird?
> On Friday, September 03, 2010 23:50:45 Gale Andrews wrote:
> > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...>
> > | Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:20:30 -0700
> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior
> > | weird?
> > > > On 8/24/2010 10:57 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> > > > I have though been hearing some confusion reported about what
> > > > the track icon actually "means":
> > > > 
> > > > 1 Because each track on its own is a group (so, generate a
> > > > first track and
> > > > 
> > > >    it has an icon), the icon can give the impression it's a
> > > >    "repeater" for the linking button on the toolbar. So it can
> > > >    be unsettling that deselecting a sole track removes the
> > > >    icon even though linking is still on.
> > > > 
> > > > 2 When you select (in) all tracks there are as Martyn says no
> > > > tiles in the
> > > > 
> > > >    waveform, but you still see the link icon in the tracks,
> > > >    which makes people think it is a toolbar icon repeater
> > > >    after all
> > > 
> > > Don't know what you mean by "repeater".
> > 
> > I mean an icon that reacts in sympathy to (repeats) the "sync-lock"
> > button in Edit Toolbar (when that button is up, there is no icon
> > in the Track Panel).
> > 
> > > > So I think the track icon's meaning is a bit hard to document
> > > > right now. Perhaps it should a) either repeat the waveform
> > > > tiles (which as per 2 it doesn't) or b) just indicate if a
> > > > track is *potentially* in a group when linking is on?
> > > 
> > > It means the track(s) is/are in a group that has at least one
> > > selected track, and the others are sync-lock selected.
> > 
> > It can mean that, or it can also mean that all the tracks are fully
> > selected (none have waveform tiles). So if you had two audio
> > tracks above each other with a selection in one, then drag the
> > selection into the other, there is the slight problem of intuition
> > that the the tiles have gone from the waveform, but remain in the
> > track panel icons.
>> > >
> > > > If b), I don't much like the icon disappearing when track is
> > > > unselected. I appreciate we may be saying that merely
> > > > selecting a track puts it in a group, but this idea loses
> > > > clarity for me given the icon must disappear when linking is
> > > > off, yet the selected tracks respond identically whether
> > > > linking is off or not.
> > > 
> > > But the sync-lock selected track(s) behave differently when
> > > sync-lock is off or on.
> > 
> > Granted. But to give an example someone gave me, you have from top
> > to bottom of a project, two audio tracks, a label track and
> > another audio track. Click in the bottom track. It has the track
> > panel icon, so it's in a group (leaving aside whether a track on
> > its own should be a group, I'm increasingly thinking not if we
> > revisit this).
> 
> Let's not revisit this. 

If there should be any revisiting, I'm only thinking it should be at the
next evolutionary stage of syncing. Having said that I do think we 
should accept that a "group of one" isn't on the face of it a very 
obvious concept. I think Vaughan pointed that out when he initially
commented in the recent discussions on this. It's OK (for me) when 
you get to think through what we have.   

 
> > How do you now know the three unselected tracks
> > above are in a group if you don't know the logic that determines
> > that?
> > 
> 
> You don't know, but it doesn't matter. The fact that they are in a 
> group becomes important when one of them becomes selected. Only then 
> is it necessary to notify the user that they will be changed in the 
> event of insertion or removal of audio.
>
> The sync-lock icon is a binary marker. Having all tracks in any group 
> marked with it doesn't help the user differentiate between groups, and 
> doesn't help the user differentiate between tracks that will and won't 
> be affected by insertions and removals of audio. 

I think we'll have to be very clear the icon does not differentiate those 
things. That's why I was trying to nail a definition of what it does signify.   


> > Of course, if you have two audio tracks underneath the label track
> > then you have two groups. So if you were to mark "potential
> > groups" which is IMO the more intuitive thing to describe, 
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential group". The track list is 
> divided into groups that don't change when the selection changes...
> >
> > 
> > I can certainly work with a description that sees a group as
> > something that is intermittent and defined by having at least one
> > of its tracks selected, 
> 
> That's what we don't want to do. The principle of operation doesn't 
> change according to the UI. The UI is a reflection of how the internals 
> work. It provides users information on state and lets them make 
> changes. It's imperfect, because everything is imperfect, and doesn't 
> currently have a scheme to show groups. But the documentation should 
> be clear that groups don't change along with the selection.

The problem though is that the icon is removed if there are no tracks 
selected in a group, so it gives a very strong visual impression (to those .
who see the icon as marking a track that's in a group) that the group 
becomes non-existent when there is no selection. That would be my 
honest conclusion if I knew nothing about it to begin with.  


> Big point of all this: I think the sync-lock feature is on a 
> reasonably solid foundation (with the caveat that we'd like to be able 
> to choose group membership more flexibly). I want to be sure we're 
> communicating the actual operation of the program effectively through 
> the UI, so we don't end up having the tail wag the dog, changing 
> around our editing primitives based on what people want to see.

I can now (I think) see entirely what you are saying so that's fine. 
I just hope the behaviour of the current icon (in the absence of a 
scheme to show groups) isn't going to be too much of a support issue. 



Thanks




Gale 

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[James C. <cr...@in...>]

  Guys...

We're expending a phenomenal amount of energy on the precise details of 
the look of sync-lock.

What we have right now for the look is not right, but the feature works 
great (in as far as I have used it) in terms of what it does.

At some future date I believe we will actually remove the space between 
sync-locked tracks so that the groupings will be clear whether or not 
there are selections.  Ultimately the track panel is also going to move 
from being a list of tracks to being a tree of tracks with ability to 
collapse/expand subtrees.  That's not going to happen any time soon.  
We'll need to already have some space saving devices, e.g. making the 
info panels 'fly out'.  At the moment a tree would eat into the space on 
the left too much, and besides which it is too much development work to 
do at this juncture.

What we have is an evolutionary step forward and it's good.


I think the link in the track info does look a bit much like a button, 
and that is OK.  Maybe at some future date we will think of a way to use 
it as a button too.  I can live with the 'stalag-9' effect of chain link 
fencing.  It's not beautiful, but it does the job.  As far as I am 
concerned the look is now good enough.

The biggest single reason for caring about the precise look is that if 
it is confusing to users that will increase 'support calls'.  My 
suggestion here is that we make sync-lock off by default for the next 
few releases.  We'll continue to get the support calls about 'my labels 
aren't locked to my audio' which we reply with with 'try the sync lock 
feature'.  That way the people using it are the early adopters, and if 
they are really too confused by it they can switch it off again.  We'll 
get feedback on it from people who are using it, rather than people who 
accidentally encounter it.  It will help us a lot more work out what to 
do, and may even bring in volunteers to actually do it.

So, +1/-1 please for the sync-lock being off by default (but the 
sync-lock button being visible in the toolbar) for the next few releases.


--James.

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From James Crook <cr...@in...> 
| Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:23:14 +0100
| Subject: Sync-lock-look
> ... I can live with the 'stalag-9' effect of chain link fencing.  It's not .
> beautiful, but it does the job.  As far as I am concerned the look is 
> now good enough.

I think Al did as tasteful a job as could be done balancing all the 
demands of getting the tiles to look reasonable. I think it's "probably"
good enough for 2.0 - many people will no doubt have a knee-jerk
reaction to it, but most will get used to it. Also the tiles themselves
aren't really confusing anyone as far as I know.   

I'm glad I asked if the tiles had to be the same as the icon. I'm not 
convinced they need to be more than "related", but if changing the 
icon means changing the tiles just for that reason, I don't think we 
have the time until after 2.0 (unless there is a quick and clear 
consensus). 


> The biggest single reason for caring about the precise look is that if 
> it is confusing to users that will increase 'support calls'. 

I think it's more than just the exact icon and how much it looks like 
a button; it's its function and when it appears/disappears as well. 


> My suggestion here is that we make sync-lock off by default for the next 
> few releases.  

+1 here as you state at the end (sync-lock is enabled, but "off" by default).  
I thought that was already agreed, and that's as it now is in the 1.3.13 
alphas.  


> We'll get feedback on it from people who are using it, rather than people 
> who accidentally encounter it.  

All the feedback I was relaying in the "Linking icon" thread was from people 
who are keen to use/explore sync-lock, not from accidental discoverers 
who suddenly find audio is being cut from all the tracks.  





Gale 


> So, +1/-1 please for the sync-lock being off by default (but the 
> sync-lock button being visible in the toolbar) for the next few releases.

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Peter S. <pet...@ya...>]

James,

Certainly it's a   +1   from me for synch-lock being off by default - and for 
the button being visible

Peter.
 Peter Sampson
Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780
Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 




________________________________
From: James Crook <cr...@in...>
To: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...>; audacity-quality 
<aud...@li...>
Sent: Sat, September 4, 2010 11:23:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

  Guys...

We're expending a phenomenal amount of energy on the precise details of 
the look of sync-lock.

What we have right now for the look is not right, but the feature works 
great (in as far as I have used it) in terms of what it does.

At some future date I believe we will actually remove the space between 
sync-locked tracks so that the groupings will be clear whether or not 
there are selections.  Ultimately the track panel is also going to move 
from being a list of tracks to being a tree of tracks with ability to 
collapse/expand subtrees.  That's not going to happen any time soon.  
We'll need to already have some space saving devices, e.g. making the 
info panels 'fly out'.  At the moment a tree would eat into the space on 
the left too much, and besides which it is too much development work to 
do at this juncture.

What we have is an evolutionary step forward and it's good.


I think the link in the track info does look a bit much like a button, 
and that is OK.  Maybe at some future date we will think of a way to use 
it as a button too.  I can live with the 'stalag-9' effect of chain link 
fencing.  It's not beautiful, but it does the job.  As far as I am 
concerned the look is now good enough.

The biggest single reason for caring about the precise look is that if 
it is confusing to users that will increase 'support calls'.  My 
suggestion here is that we make sync-lock off by default for the next 
few releases.  We'll continue to get the support calls about 'my labels 
aren't locked to my audio' which we reply with with 'try the sync lock 
feature'.  That way the people using it are the early adopters, and if 
they are really too confused by it they can switch it off again.  We'll 
get feedback on it from people who are using it, rather than people who 
accidentally encounter it.  It will help us a lot more work out what to 
do, and may even bring in volunteers to actually do it.

So, +1/-1 please for the sync-lock being off by default (but the 
sync-lock button being visible in the toolbar) for the next few releases.


--James.








------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:

Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
Aud...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality



      

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Vaughan J. <va...@au...>]

On 9/4/2010 3:23 AM, James Crook wrote:
>   Guys...
> 
> We're expending a phenomenal amount of energy on the precise details of 
> the look of sync-lock.

Truly. And a lot of it is rehashing things I thought we'd decided. Lots
of good comments and insights, but I'm glad I didn't have time to join
in until now! :-)

At any rate, I made some code changes based on the discussion. More
below, including responses to snippets from multiple messages.


> 
> What we have right now for the look is not right, but the feature works 
> great (in as far as I have used it) in terms of what it does.
<snip>
> What we have is an evolutionary step forward and it's good.

Yes, we've previously discussed its flaws and agreed not to put in the
effort, at this time, to do full-fledged grouping/trees.


> 
> 
> I think the link in the track info does look a bit much like a button, 
> and that is OK.  

I tried a few simple ways of dealing with this and committed the one I
like best. I commented out the one call to
TrackInfo::DrawBordersWithin(). Pretty bold. This eliminates all the
dark border lines within the TrackInfo. It leaves some lighter borders,
and I think that's an aesthetic improvement, though it may be worse in
terms of accessibility. I can also remove the light border above the
sync-lock icon, or I could restore all the dark lines except the one
above the minimize button rect, but I think this looks best overall.
Comments, please.


>Maybe at some future date we will think of a way to use 
> it as a button too.  

I liked Al's suggestion, but think it's overkill at this point. I agree
with Al that Steve's suggestion is a can of worms in terms of specifying
correct behavior, and this feature is already relatively hard to understand.

Also, it's true what wxToolTips require a wxWindow (e.g., a wxButton),
but all the controls in the TrackInfo are "lightweight" and not based on
wxWidgets controls. That's why, for example, there's no tooltip for
Mute/Solo, and the custom coded ones for the sliders work only while the
mouse is down on them, and they're a different font from the wxToolTips
(e.g., hover over the toolbar buttons). So, to make the sync-lock icon a
button and put a "tooltip" on it would require a good bit more custom
code -- not worth the effort, imo. Better to make it not appear to be a
button.


>I can live with the 'stalag-9' effect of chain link 
> fencing.  

I think changing it to a clock will fix that. That's the one thing I
didn't do yet.


> <snip>
> 
> So, +1/-1 please for the sync-lock being off by default (but the 
> sync-lock button being visible in the toolbar) for the next few releases.
> 

Yes, we've voted on this more than once already, but +1.
_______


Other changes I made:

In Track::IsSyncLockSelected(), for the "// Not in a sync-locked group."
conditional, it returned true if the track was selected. I made it do so
only if track kind is Wave or Label. Among other things, this means Time
and Note tracks will never show the sync-lock icon. I think this is
correct by definition, but Al, please let me know if this will have
negative repercussions elsewhere. There are *lots* of calls to that
method and I can move the track-type check to the code that draws the
sync-lock icon..

Fixed the bug Gale pointed out where, if a WaveTrack is shrunk such that
the sync-lock icon is over a TrackInfo control, such as pan slider, it
didn't intercept the mouse event, and passed it on to the control. Now,
clicking on the sync-lock icon does nothing.

Fixed a bug where the sync-lock icon was redrawn dark when the minimize
button is down. Now not redrawn at all in that case.


- Vaughan

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
| Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:46:54 -0700
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look
> On 9/4/2010 3:23 AM, James Crook wrote:
> 
> > I think the link in the track info does look a bit much like a button, 
> > and that is OK.  
> 
> I tried a few simple ways of dealing with this and committed the one I
> like best. I commented out the one call to
> TrackInfo::DrawBordersWithin(). Pretty bold. This eliminates all the
> dark border lines within the TrackInfo. It leaves some lighter borders,
> and I think that's an aesthetic improvement, though it may be worse in
> terms of accessibility. I can also remove the light border above the
> sync-lock icon, or I could restore all the dark lines except the one
> above the minimize button rect, but I think this looks best overall.
> Comments, please.

Thanks, Vaughan. I think making the icon so you can't even click it to 
select the track is the correct move, so the border above the sync-lock
icon should stay. And aesthetically I like it, except it's seems very 
retrograde for accessibility. I get the same sort of strain looking at it 
(initially, anyway) as I did some of the early tile designs which were 
too faint.  I do think the minimise button rectangle should have the 
same border as all else. 

The main problem for me is the mute/solo buttons and I think it's 
because the eye is drawn to the away to the slider horizontal line - 
is it actually darker than the grey borders elsewhere, or an illusion
because there is no white horizontal line adjacent to it? 

The problem for me with the previous look was the opposite, the mute/
solo buttons were too strong for the slider. Is it possible to get a lighter
colour for the old dark border lines, or slightly darken the current 
lighter borders? I think that would make it perfect for me.  


> >I can live with the 'stalag-9' effect of chain link 
> > fencing.  
> 
> I think changing it to a clock will fix that. That's the one thing I didn't do
> yet. 

Can't say until I've seen a mockup, but I think there could still be a feeling 
of "oppression" about filling the sync-lock selection with the icon, unless 
we have more space between the clocks.  





Gale 

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Vaughan J. <va...@au...>]

On 9/9/2010 2:55 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> 
> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
> | Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:46:54 -0700
> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look
>> On 9/4/2010 3:23 AM, James Crook wrote:
>>
>>> I think the link in the track info does look a bit much like a button, 
>>> and that is OK.  
>>
>> I tried a few simple ways of dealing with this and committed the one I
>> like best. I commented out the one call to
>> TrackInfo::DrawBordersWithin(). Pretty bold. This eliminates all the
>> dark border lines within the TrackInfo. It leaves some lighter borders,
>> and I think that's an aesthetic improvement, though it may be worse in
>> terms of accessibility. I can also remove the light border above the
>> sync-lock icon, or I could restore all the dark lines except the one
>> above the minimize button rect, but I think this looks best overall.
>> Comments, please.
> 
> Thanks, Vaughan. I think making the icon so you can't even click it to 
> select the track is the correct move, so the border above the sync-lock
> icon should stay. 

Actually, that was an unintended side effect of fixing the bug of
passing it through to covered-up controls underneath. It's an indicator,
much like "Mono, 44100Hz", so I think it probably should select the track.



>And aesthetically I like it, except it's seems very 
> retrograde for accessibility. 

Is David reading this thread?

I think James added that code for the dark borders in addition to the
bevels. James, why was that?


>I get the same sort of strain looking at it 
> (initially, anyway) as I did some of the early tile designs which were 
> too faint.  

I don't. I like it better.


>I do think the minimise button rectangle should have the 
> same border as all else. 

It does currently, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.


> 
> The main problem for me is the mute/solo buttons and I think it's 
> because the eye is drawn to the away to the slider horizontal line - 

That doesn't happen for me.


> is it actually darker than the grey borders elsewhere, or an illusion
> because there is no white horizontal line adjacent to it? 

Don't know. Looks slightly darker to me -- and that's a good thing,
because they're functionally different. I could look it up in the code,
but not sure why, so will forgo for now.


> 
> The problem for me with the previous look was the opposite, the mute/
> solo buttons were too strong for the slider. Is it possible to get a lighter
> colour for the old dark border lines, or slightly darken the current 
> lighter borders? I think that would make it perfect for me.  

Yes, those are possible. I'd like to get some feedback from other
people, too, before spending more time changing this incrementally.

- Vaughan

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
| Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:17:41 -0700
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look
> On 9/9/2010 2:55 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
> > | Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:46:54 -0700
> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look
> >> On 9/4/2010 3:23 AM, James Crook wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think the link in the track info does look a bit much like a button, 
> >>> and that is OK.  
> >>
> >> I tried a few simple ways of dealing with this and committed the one I
> >> like best. I commented out the one call to
> >> TrackInfo::DrawBordersWithin(). Pretty bold. This eliminates all the
> >> dark border lines within the TrackInfo. It leaves some lighter borders,
> >> and I think that's an aesthetic improvement, though it may be worse in
> >> terms of accessibility. I can also remove the light border above the
> >> sync-lock icon, or I could restore all the dark lines except the one
> >> above the minimize button rect, but I think this looks best overall.
> >> Comments, please.
> > 
> > Thanks, Vaughan. I think making the icon so you can't even click it to 
> > select the track is the correct move, so the border above the sync-lock
> > icon should stay. 
> 
> Actually, that was an unintended side effect of fixing the bug of
> passing it through to covered-up controls underneath. It's an indicator,
> much like "Mono, 44100Hz", so I think it probably should select the track.

I think it's a close call. I see the icon more as an "indicator light" (it can 
change state) than a static indicator like track info. 

It makes sense to me the icon doesn't select the track. As of now, the
minimise button doesn't do so, nor does the Track Drop-down button, so 
you have to click between them to select the track (irrespective of the 
"sync-lock" state, which shouldn't affect that). 

Of course, all those decisions give you no way with the mouse to select 
all of a minimised track, but I always assumed that preferable to having 
the minimise button and track Drop-down button select the track. 

If we want the icon to select the track, then I think we should remove the 
horizontal line above it to make clear it is "just part of the track panel". 


> >I get the same sort of strain looking at it 
> > (initially, anyway) as I did some of the early tile designs which were 
> > too faint.  
> 
> I don't. I like it better.

I do have some difficulty with weakly contrasted colours. It causes 
me mild blurring and straining. 


> >I do think the minimise button rectangle should have the 
> > same border as all else. 
> 
> It does currently, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The (removed) context I was responding to was your suggestion that 
"I could restore all the dark lines except the one above the minimize 
button rect". It does indeed have the same border as of now.   


> > The main problem for me is the mute/solo buttons and I think it's 
> > because the eye is drawn to the away to the slider horizontal line - 
> 
> That doesn't happen for me.

My problem is mostly when the track is selected, so that the borders 
aren't sufficiently contrasted with the darker selected colour. My 
"impression" is that the current border colour is now weaker than any       
border colour in the program (compare for example the lines separating
the different toolbars). 



 
Gale 

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[David B. <drb...@go...>]

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Vaughan Johnson
<va...@au...> wrote:

>
>>And aesthetically I like it, except it's seems very
>> retrograde for accessibility.
>
> Is David reading this thread?

Yes. I had a quick look at it using Gale's latest build, and I think
that it's ok not having the black dividing lines,

David.

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Vaughan J. <va...@au...>]

First off, I've changed the sync-lock icon and track tiling to be a
clock. The icon is pretty tiny to be clearly a clock, so I think
"clock-in-lock" is out of the question.

Yet to change the sync-lock button images in the toolbar.


On 9/10/2010 5:34 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> 
> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
> | Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:17:41 -0700
> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look
>> On 9/9/2010 2:55 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
>>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> fd
>>> | Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:46:54 -0700
>>> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look
>>>> On 9/4/2010 3:23 AM, James Crook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the link in the track info does look a bit much like a button, 
>>>>> and that is OK.  
>>>>
>>>> I tried a few simple ways of dealing with this and committed the one I
>>>> like best. I commented out the one call to
>>>> TrackInfo::DrawBordersWithin(). Pretty bold. This eliminates all the
>>>> dark border lines within the TrackInfo. It leaves some lighter borders,
>>>> and I think that's an aesthetic improvement, though it may be worse in
>>>> terms of accessibility. I can also remove the light border above the
>>>> sync-lock icon, or I could restore all the dark lines except the one
>>>> above the minimize button rect, but I think this looks best overall.
>>>> Comments, please.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Vaughan. I think making the icon so you can't even click it to 
>>> select the track is the correct move, so the border above the sync-lock
>>> icon should stay. 
>>
>> Actually, that was an unintended side effect of fixing the bug of
>> passing it through to covered-up controls underneath. It's an indicator,
>> much like "Mono, 44100Hz", so I think it probably should select the track.
> 
> I think it's a close call. I see the icon more as an "indicator light" (it can 
> change state) than a static indicator like track info. 

That's non-standard as a GUI distinction -- static means clicking on it
does not change the item itself. You can change track sample rate, for
example (via the track menu), but clicking on the text describing it,
does nothing. That's why the text is "static". Likewise for the
sync-lock icon.

As we agree, if you click on the sync-lock icon (analogous to bumping a
railway "repeater" versus throwing a switch, per our off-list), it
doesn't do anything. So the sync-lock icon is also static, and should
have the same behavior, i.e, track selection.


Btw, your use of "track info" implies you mean, e.g., "mono, 44100Hz",
but the TrackInfo C++ class in the code is the whole box at the left of
the vertical ruler, including mute/solo/pan/gain controls -- not just
the information. That confusing name of "TrackInfo" for the class is
historic, and something I recently wrote (in a doxygen comment) should
likely be changed to "TrackControls"... or maybe "TrackControlsCluster".


> 
> It makes sense to me the icon doesn't select the track. As of now, the
> minimise button doesn't do so, nor does the Track Drop-down button, so
> you have to click between them to select the track (irrespective of the 
> "sync-lock" state, which shouldn't affect that). 

Minimize button and track menu are *controls*, that have specific
functionalities. Their functionalities would be confused if they were
conflated with track selection. Likewise, mute, solo, gain, and pan
controls. They have nothing to do with track selection. Manipulating
them does not change track selection, but changes the characteristics of
the track.

Clicking on the sync-lock icon doesn't do anything to change the track
itself, it's not a button (or any type of control), so it should do the
same thing as clicking on, e.g., "44,100Hz". And now does.


> 
> Of course, all those decisions give you no way with the mouse to select 
> all of a minimised track, but I always assumed that preferable to having 
> the minimise button and track Drop-down button select the track. 

I've changed it so clicking on the sync-lock icon selects the track, so
you can now select all of a minimized track.

It's not a trade-off vs track-changing controls.


> 
> If we want the icon to select the track, then I think we should remove the 
> horizontal line above it to make clear it is "just part of the track panel". 
> 
> 

Done. And I removed the other bevels around purely "info", static parts
of the TrackInfo box. I think it's overall a lot cleaner and less
misleading as to what's a functional control and what's static.


>>> I get the same sort of strain looking at it 
>>> (initially, anyway) as I did some of the early tile designs which were 
>>> too faint.  
>>
>> I don't. I like it better.
> 
> I do have some difficulty with weakly contrasted colours. It causes 
> me mild blurring and straining. 

Went ahead with David's feedback that "it's ok not having the black
dividing lines", and removed the bevels on the areas holding static
elements. Thanks, David.


> 
> 
>>> I do think the minimise button rectangle should have the 
>>> same border as all else. 
>>
>> It does currently, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
> 
> The (removed) context I was responding to was your suggestion that 
> "I could restore all the dark lines except the one above the minimize 
> button rect". It does indeed have the same border as of now.   

They were consistent in both cases.


> 
> 
>>> The main problem for me is the mute/solo buttons and I think it's 
>>> because the eye is drawn to the away to the slider horizontal line - 
>>
>> That doesn't happen for me.
> 
> My problem is mostly when the track is selected, so that the borders 
> aren't sufficiently contrasted with the darker selected colour. My 
> "impression" is that the current border colour is now weaker than any       
> border colour in the program (compare for example the lines separating
> the different toolbars). 
> 

Please, David and Gale, check the latest.

Thanks!

- Vaughan

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[David B. <drb...@go...>]

On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Vaughan Johnson
<va...@au...> wrote:
>
> Please, David and Gale, check the latest.

re the mute and solo buttons, I think it would be a bit clearer that
they were buttons if there were horizontal grey lines immediately
above and below them, as in the edit toolbar. With no difference in
color betweent the buttons and the background, the current edges have
fairly low contrast.
re the clock icon in the track panel. It has slightly low contrast, a
bit more pitch black might be helpful.

David.

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From David Bailes <drb...@go...> 
| Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:54:38 +0100
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Vaughan Johnson
> <va...@au...> wrote:
> >
> > Please, David and Gale, check the latest.
> 
> re the mute and solo buttons, I think it would be a bit clearer that
> they were buttons if there were horizontal grey lines immediately
> above and below them, as in the edit toolbar. With no difference in
> color betweent the buttons and the background, the current edges have
> fairly low contrast.

Wouldn't it be better if we could put the dark border back (so affecting 
the track menu button and minimise button too), but with a rather 
lighter colour? I agree, something akin to the contrast the Edit Toolbar
buttons have would be good. 


> re the clock icon in the track panel. It has slightly low contrast, a
> bit more pitch black might be helpful.

I like the look of the icon in the Track Panel. It doesn't seem quite correct
in the waveform yet. As well as it being slightly low contrast, the "rim"  
that surrounds the clock "looks" thicker than (but lighter than) the clock
itself. The rim seems thicker at the bottom too (it appears to have light 
grey shading in the bottom half of the clock face on my monitor). 

The clock tiles also looks a bit like a letter V in a circle. Maybe it would
be a bit better if the "time" was closer to a quarter to two? It looks a 
bit like "five to" in the tiles and "ten to" in the Track Panel - is it an
illusion?

So for me, more space between the clock tiles, with a slightly, darker 
thinner rim would help. 


Thanks,



Gale 

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...>]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>
> | From David Bailes <drb...@go...>
> | Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:54:38 +0100
> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look
>> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Vaughan Johnson
>> <va...@au...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Please, David and Gale, check the latest.
>>
>> re the mute and solo buttons, I think it would be a bit clearer that
>> they were buttons if there were horizontal grey lines immediately
>> above and below them, as in the edit toolbar. With no difference in
>> color betweent the buttons and the background, the current edges have
>> fairly low contrast.
>
> Wouldn't it be better if we could put the dark border back (so affecting
> the track menu button and minimise button too), but with a rather
> lighter colour? I agree, something akin to the contrast the Edit Toolbar
> buttons have would be good.
>
>
>> re the clock icon in the track panel. It has slightly low contrast, a
>> bit more pitch black might be helpful.
>
> I like the look of the icon in the Track Panel. It doesn't seem quite correct
> in the waveform yet. As well as it being slightly low contrast, the "rim"
> that surrounds the clock "looks" thicker than (but lighter than) the clock
> itself. The rim seems thicker at the bottom too (it appears to have light
> grey shading in the bottom half of the clock face on my monitor).
>
> The clock tiles also looks a bit like a letter V in a circle. Maybe it would
> be a bit better if the "time" was closer to a quarter to two? It looks a
> bit like "five to" in the tiles and "ten to" in the Track Panel - is it an
> illusion?
>
> So for me, more space between the clock tiles, with a slightly, darker
> thinner rim would help.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Gale
>

The link icon on track panel is clearly not a button now (which is
good), and I like that you can click on it to select the track when
the track is collapsed. However when SyncLock is off and the track is
minimised, there is a tiny sliver between the track name and the
expand button, which if clicked on with the accuracy of a surgeon it
is possible to select the track without expanding it.
My preference would be that when SyncLock is off, the track icon
disappears but the track expand button does not grow to fill the
space, but that the space remains empty, leaving a space that the user
can click on when the track is minimised.

Regarding the icon / tiles, I'm not overly concerned about what the
graphic is, but using a literal representation of a clock would tend
to invite the question of whether there is any significance to 1:55.
As it represents "synchronization" rather than "time", perhaps
something a bit less literal would convey the meaning more clearly,
for example:http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=synchronize&tbs=isch:1,isz:i&biw=1366&bih=549

Steve

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Martyn S. <mar...@gm...>]

On 19:59, Steve the Fiddle wrote:
<snip>
> My preference would be that when SyncLock is off, the track icon
> disappears but the track expand button does not grow to fill the
> space, but that the space remains empty, leaving a space that the user
> can click on when the track is minimised.

+1

<snip>
> Steve
>
>

Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> 
| Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:15:11 +0100
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look
> The link icon on track panel is clearly not a button now (which is
> good), and I like that you can click on it to select the track when
> the track is collapsed. 

I'm fine with it now the horizontal line above the icon has gone. 


> However when SyncLock is off and the track is minimised, there is 
> a tiny sliver between the track name and the expand button, which
> if clicked on with the accuracy of a surgeon it is possible to select 
> the track without expanding it.
> My preference would be that when SyncLock is off, the track icon
> disappears but the track expand button does not grow to fill the
> space, but that the space remains empty, leaving a space that the user
> can click on when the track is minimised.

+1.  Sync-Lock is off by default and it would be a solution to (easily) 
select a minimised track in that default case.

I think it would look OK to remove that "sliver" between the track
name and the expand button; I don't think it would make the icon look 
like a button when in minimised state. The space saved would add up 
when you had a lot of tracks.  

  
> Regarding the icon / tiles, I'm not overly concerned about what the
> graphic is, but using a literal representation of a clock would tend
> to invite the question of whether there is any significance to 1:55.
> As it represents "synchronization" rather than "time", perhaps
> something a bit less literal would convey the meaning more clearly,
> for example:http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=synchronize&tbs=isch:1,isz:i&biw=1366&bih=549

-1. Those icons made me think of file synchronisation, or exchanging 
tracks' vertical order, or the Undo/Redo icon we already use in 
Edit Toolbar. If there is a mnemonic for movement it should I think
be horizontal. 

But given an icon can mean anything, I think the clock is OK and will 
look a bit less oppressive since the clocks don't have to be linked
together.





Gale