Thread: Re: [Audacity-quality] Sync-lock-look (Page 3)
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
Menu
▾
▴
audacity-quality
|
From: Al D. <bus...@gm...> - 2010-09-08 02:28:54
|
On Tuesday, September 07, 2010 15:27:56 Steve the Fiddle wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Al Dimond > > <bus...@gm...> wrote: > > On Saturday, September 04, 2010 03:23:14 James Crook wrote: > >> 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. > > > > It might be cool if clicking on the lock selected all sync-locked > > tracks (same as the Edit->Select->In All Sync-Locked Tracks menu > > item). It could have a tool-tip like: "This track is sync-locked; > > click here to select all sync-locked tracks". Maybe in the case > > where the track is fully selected omit the first part. That > > might be too verbose. > > Assuming that you mean the 'button' on the Track panel, an > alternative "cool" function could be to temporarily un-lock that > track from the sync-locked group (with an up and down state for > the button). That would give a quick and powerful way to work with > different sync-locked groupings without needing to re-order the > tracks. > I think this opens a big can of worms in terms of specifying correct behavior (the big question is what happens when the selection changes in various ways), so I don't think we should do it right now. But I do think it's a cool idea. It wouldn't even be that hard to implement, though it would take some caution in the future to avoid breaking it. Maybe this could be a part of post-2.0 grouping. Tracks can voluntarily join groups but recuse themselves temporarily. I'll try to remember this idea when we're at that point. - Al > Steve D > > >> 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. > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > - Al > > > >> --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 > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------- 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- 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 |
|
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-08-25 21:55:11
|
On 8/24/2010 4:28 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: > > > 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. Thanks! > >> 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? ;-) Yes, I realized that but was being brief. To become a button, it would need another image for "down" (sync-lock on) state, beveled edges, and be always visible. And in fact, another image (or two) for tracks not currently sync-lock selected. > > And clicking on it still has the roll-up/down functionality of the > minimize button - intentional or a (very minor) bug? Thanks. I didn't notice that. Fixed. > > 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. > Didn't change anything about that, so I think that's how it's supposed to work. My understanding is the gray is for selected, the links are for "sync-lock selected" (i.e., not selected, but will be affected by sync-lock sensitive operations on the selected track). - Vaughan |
|
From: Al D. <bus...@gm...> - 2010-09-03 05:16:30
|
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 14:55:16 Vaughan Johnson wrote: > On 8/24/2010 4:28 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: > > 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. > > Thanks! > This is really late in (I've had some Internet issues the last few weeks), but I like this, too. It's actually a lot more noticeable than I thought it would be from the description. I guess it's just one of those things where the only way to find out is to do it. > >> 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? > > ;-) > > Yes, I realized that but was being brief. To become a button, it > would need another image for "down" (sync-lock on) state, beveled > edges, and be always visible. And in fact, another image (or two) > for tracks not currently sync-lock selected. > > > And clicking on it still has the roll-up/down functionality of > > the minimize button - intentional or a (very minor) bug? > > Thanks. I didn't notice that. Fixed. > > > 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. > > Didn't change anything about that, so I think that's how it's > supposed to work. My understanding is the gray is for selected, > the links are for "sync-lock selected" (i.e., not selected, but > will be affected by sync-lock sensitive operations on the selected > track). > This is how it's supposed to be, so far as that's the way I intended it. - Al > - Vaughan > |
|
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-09-03 20:35:56
|
On 9/2/2010 9:53 PM, Al Dimond wrote: > On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 14:55:16 Vaughan Johnson wrote: >> On 8/24/2010 4:28 PM, Martyn Shaw wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Thanks! >> > > This is really late in (I've had some Internet issues the last few > weeks), but I like this, too. It's actually a lot more noticeable than > I thought it would be from the description. I guess it's just one of > those things where the only way to find out is to do it. > Thanks, Al. I still think it's a good idea to change the icon to clock-in-lock, lock, or clock... - Vaughan |
|
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-09-03 22:02:44
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:36:06 -0700 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird? > I still think it's a good idea to change the icon to clock-in-lock, lock, > or clock... I agree with that because (in isolation) I don't think it's easy to see what the icon in the collapse button is. I think some type of clock would be better. But if we changed the icon, is a design consideration that we have to use that for the waveform tiles as well, the appearance of which seems a stumbling block? Gale |
|
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-09-03 23:42:09
|
On 9/3/2010 3:02 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:36:06 -0700 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird? >> I still think it's a good idea to change the icon to clock-in-lock, lock, >> or clock... > > I agree with that because (in isolation) I don't think it's easy to see > what the icon in the collapse button is. Ahem, it is specifically *not* in the minimize button, but adjacent to it, as I pointed out before. It has nothing to do with minimize. Anyway, thanks. Any preference on which of those would be most mnemonic? To your previous point about size, would it help if I give a wider berth to the left of the sync-lock icon, i.e., shrink the width of the minimize button more than currently? >I think some type of clock > would be better. But if we changed the icon, is a design consideration > that we have to use that for the waveform tiles as well, ... Yes, of course they should match. I just didn't mention it. >...the appearance > of which seems a stumbling block? Why do you say that? I think it was an issue when it overwrote the numbers and tick marks in WaveTrack rulers, but not in the waveform. - Vaughan |
|
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-09-04 06:50:38
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:42:18 -0700 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird? > On 9/3/2010 3:02 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > > > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > > | Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:36:06 -0700 > > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Linking icon WAS Re: select behavior weird? > >> I still think it's a good idea to change the icon to clock-in-lock, lock, > >> or clock... > > > > I agree with that because (in isolation) I don't think it's easy to see > > what the icon in the collapse button is. > > Ahem, it is specifically *not* in the minimize button, but adjacent to > it, as I pointed out before. It has nothing to do with minimize. Good! I meant it was in some of the space that collapse occupies when sync-lock is off. But please see my other message in this thread about this. > Any preference on which of those would be most mnemonic? I can't see that a "clock in a lock" would work in the track panel icon due to size. An icon that was just the top of a lock might do, but I'd think a clock is more mnemonic even though still ambiguous. I still think a clock with arrows either side of it could work and might be a bit less ambiguous. > To your previous point about size, would it help if I give a wider berth > to the left of the sync-lock icon, i.e., shrink the width of the > minimize button more than currently? I don't think so unless the icon was larger (wider and taller). > > I think some type of clock would be better. But if we changed the icon, > > is a design consideration that we have to use that for the waveform tiles > > as well, ... > > Yes, of course they should match. I just didn't mention it. > > >...the appearance > > of which seems a stumbling block? > > Why do you say that? I think it was an issue when it overwrote the > numbers and tick marks in WaveTrack rulers, but not in the waveform. Feedback suggests overprominence of the tiles in the waveform is a very significant issue. Part of that was the "concentration camp" effect of having chains which would not be an issue if we had a clock, but is a line of clocks in the waveform going to look odd? I think if we went for a clock we may have to just have the tiles at the corners of the selection? Gale |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X