Thread: [Audacity-quality] Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Control Panel
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2010-10-22 10:04:42
|
Bill Wharrie has been working recently on documenting sync-lock for the 1.3/2.0 manual. I have been reviewing this for him. See: http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Talk:Label_Tracks I would like to bring to the attention of the QA list a discussion that was held on the forum recently regarding the visibility (or otherwise) of the mini-clock icon in the Track Control Panel - the indicator that sync-lock is "on" for that track. Some of us felt that the indicator being small and white is a little lost in the TCP and Bill made a mock-up showing it as yellow. See the 2nd. page of this forum thread: http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=42068&start=10 You will see from the thread that Bill, Steve Daulton and I all support this. What do other QA folk think? Peter. Note that Bill is temporarily working with the vertically-tiled clock icons in the tracks pending the arrival of what we believe will be the final version with diagonally-tiled clocks. Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2010-10-22 12:00:15
Attachments:
SyncLockIcon.png
|
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Peter Sampson <pet...@ya...> wrote: > Bill Wharrie has been working recently on documenting sync-lock for the > 1.3/2.0 manual. I have been reviewing this for him. See: > http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Talk:Label_Tracks > > I would like to bring to the attention of the QA list a discussion that was > held on the forum recently regarding the visibility (or otherwise) of the > mini-clock icon in the Track Control Panel - the indicator that sync-lock > is "on" for that track. Some of us felt that the indicator being small and > white is a little lost in the TCP and Bill made a mock-up showing it as > yellow. See the 2nd. page of this forum thread: > http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=42068&start=10 > > You will see from the thread that Bill, Steve Daulton and I all support > this. What do other QA folk think? > > Peter. > > Note that Bill is temporarily working with the vertically-tiled clock icons > in the tracks pending the arrival of what we believe will be the final > version with diagonally-tiled clocks. > > Peter Sampson > Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 > Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 > Here's an image similar to Bill's proposal (attached). Steve |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-10-22 18:22:21
Attachments:
SyncLockIcon.png
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:00:08 +0100 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Control Panel > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Peter Sampson > <pet...@ya...> wrote: > > Bill Wharrie has been working recently on documenting sync-lock for the > > 1.3/2.0 manual. I have been reviewing this for him. See: > > http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Talk:Label_Tracks > > > > I would like to bring to the attention of the QA list a discussion that was > > held on the forum recently regarding the visibility (or otherwise) of the > > mini-clock icon in the Track Control Panel - the indicator that sync-lock > > is "on" for that track. Some of us felt that the indicator being small and > > white is a little lost in the TCP and Bill made a mock-up showing it as > > yellow. See the 2nd. page of this forum thread: > > http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=42068&start=10 > > > > You will see from the thread that Bill, Steve Daulton and I all support > > this. What do other QA folk think? > > > > Peter. > > > > Note that Bill is temporarily working with the vertically-tiled clock icons > > in the tracks pending the arrival of what we believe will be the final > > version with diagonally-tiled clocks. > > > > Peter Sampson > > Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 > > Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 > > > > Here's an image similar to Bill's proposal (attached). > > Steve I haven't tried it, but I don't like using yellow because it confuses with the track focus colour. If we can use colours for the Sync-Lock icon in the Track Panel, why not use the current white? I think the yellow would be very "loud" if used in the larger icon in Edit Toolbar. And if colours used for the Sync-Lock icons in Edit Toolbar and Track Panel don't match, that creates its own confusion. There are other issues in that Forum thread too, so I've commented on them in situ: http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=42068&p=108476#p108476 Gale |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-10-22 20:51:38
|
On 10/22/2010 11:22 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:00:08 +0100 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Control Panel >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Peter Sampson >> <pet...@ya...> wrote: >>> Bill Wharrie has been working recently on documenting sync-lock for the >>> 1.3/2.0 manual. I have been reviewing this for him. See: >>> http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Talk:Label_Tracks >>> >>> I would like to bring to the attention of the QA list a discussion that was >>> held on the forum recently regarding the visibility (or otherwise) of the >>> mini-clock icon in the Track Control Panel... I had never seen that term before, and didn't know what you were talking about. But I see it's in some old docs: * http://audacity.sourceforge.net/onlinehelp-1.2/reference.html * http://audacity.sourceforge.net/onlinehelp-1.2/track_audio.htm and has propagated elsewhere, e.g., * http://audacity.sourceforge.net/onlinehelp-1.2/track_audio.htm * http://www.guidesandtutorials.com/audacity-tracks.html * http://tesl-ej.org/ej41/m2.html A "Control Panel" is a very specific term having to do with operating systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Panel_%28Windows%29, but I think the term originated on Mac), so I consider this conflation a very bad thing. Happy to see it's apparently vanquished from the new manual (and "Control Panel" is used in the OS sense). Please don't use the term "Track Control Panel" so we can try to stop its propagation. In general, I like user-level terminology to match the terminology in the code. In the code, that frame/rectangle is called the Track Info -- but I agree that's not a fully descriptive name. Thanks. >>>...- the indicator that sync-lock >>> is "on" for that track. Some of us felt that the indicator being small and >>> white is a little lost in the TCP and Bill made a mock-up showing it as >>> yellow. See the 2nd. page of this forum thread: >>> http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=42068&start=10 That saturated yellow hurts my eyes. >>> >>> You will see from the thread that Bill, Steve Daulton and I all support >>> this. What do other QA folk think? >>> >>> Peter. >>> >>> Note that Bill is temporarily working with the vertically-tiled clock icons >>> in the tracks pending the arrival of what we believe will be the final >>> version with diagonally-tiled clocks. >>> >>> Peter Sampson >>> Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 >>> Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 >>> >> >> Here's an image similar to Bill's proposal (attached). >> >> Steve Thanks, Steve. It's good that it's very similar to the button icon you posted. I suggest coming to agreement on the full set before putting them in the app. > > I haven't tried it, but I don't like using yellow because it confuses with > the track focus colour. I think Steve's submission is a less painful yellow. If it's a different shade from the track focus color, might not be a problem. >If we can use colours for the Sync-Lock icon > in the Track Panel, why not use the current white? I think the yellow > would be very "loud" if used in the larger icon in Edit Toolbar. And if > colours used for the Sync-Lock icons in Edit Toolbar and Track Panel > don't match, that creates its own confusion. Whatever the choice, I agree they should match, and be relatively subdued (Steve thought the white is too bright). A rainbow-colored interface tends to confuse focus of attention. - Vaughan > > There are other issues in that Forum thread too, so I've commented > on them in situ: > http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=42068&p=108476#p108476 > > > > > > Gale > > |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2010-10-23 15:35:54
|
>>> ... Track Control Panel... Vaughan wrote: >A "Control Panel" is a very specific term having to do with operating >systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Panel_%28Windows%29, >but I think the term originated on Mac), so I consider this conflation a >very bad thing. I agree that the term "Control Panel" now indeed to most people generally means the O/S Windows Control Panel or its Apple equivalent. But that is by no means its only use. Many audio packages use the term "Track Control Panel": Reaper, M-Audio, XO Wave, Adobe Audition, Studio One from Presonus, Windows Media 9. And some video packages also use the term: AVID, Apple's DVD Studio Pro, Sony's Vegas Movie Studio. >Happy to see it's apparently vanquished from the new manual (and >"Control Panel" is used in the OS sense). Please don't use the term >"Track Control Panel" so we can try to stop its propagation. Yes I note that we now use the term "Track Panel" in the 1.3/2.0 manual. I learned Audacity back in 1.2.4 days when we were still calling it the "Track Control Panel" in the 1.2 docs - so that has lingered for me ... >In general, I like user-level terminology to match the terminology in >the code. In the code, that frame/rectangle is called the Track Info -- >but I agree that's not a fully descriptive name. Agreed, and I agree that "Track Info" is not fully descriptive - "Info", to me, implies information that can be viewed but not changed. So maybe the terminology in the code should be changed to match the "Track Panel" that we are using in the user documentation. Best regards, Peter. Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 ________________________________ From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> To: aud...@li... Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 9:52:06 PM Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Control Panel On 10/22/2010 11:22 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> > | Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:00:08 +0100 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track >Control Panel >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Peter Sampson >> <pet...@ya...> wrote: >>> Bill Wharrie has been working recently on documenting sync-lock for the >>> 1.3/2.0 manual. I have been reviewing this for him. See: >>> http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Talk:Label_Tracks >>> >>> I would like to bring to the attention of the QA list a discussion that was >>> held on the forum recently regarding the visibility (or otherwise) of the >>> mini-clock icon in the Track Control Panel... I had never seen that term before, and didn't know what you were talking about. But I see it's in some old docs: * http://audacity.sourceforge.net/onlinehelp-1.2/reference.html * http://audacity.sourceforge.net/onlinehelp-1.2/track_audio.htm and has propagated elsewhere, e.g., * http://audacity.sourceforge.net/onlinehelp-1.2/track_audio.htm * http://www.guidesandtutorials.com/audacity-tracks.html * http://tesl-ej.org/ej41/m2.html A "Control Panel" is a very specific term having to do with operating systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Panel_%28Windows%29, but I think the term originated on Mac), so I consider this conflation a very bad thing. Happy to see it's apparently vanquished from the new manual (and "Control Panel" is used in the OS sense). Please don't use the term "Track Control Panel" so we can try to stop its propagation. In general, I like user-level terminology to match the terminology in the code. In the code, that frame/rectangle is called the Track Info -- but I agree that's not a fully descriptive name. Thanks. >>>...- the indicator that sync-lock >>> is "on" for that track. Some of us felt that the indicator being small and >>> white is a little lost in the TCP and Bill made a mock-up showing it as >>> yellow. See the 2nd. page of this forum thread: >>> http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=42068&start=10 That saturated yellow hurts my eyes. >>> >>> You will see from the thread that Bill, Steve Daulton and I all support >>> this. What do other QA folk think? >>> >>> Peter. >>> >>> Note that Bill is temporarily working with the vertically-tiled clock icons >>> in the tracks pending the arrival of what we believe will be the final >>> version with diagonally-tiled clocks. >>> >>> Peter Sampson >>> Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 >>> Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 >>> >> >> Here's an image similar to Bill's proposal (attached). >> >> Steve Thanks, Steve. It's good that it's very similar to the button icon you posted. I suggest coming to agreement on the full set before putting them in the app. > > I haven't tried it, but I don't like using yellow because it confuses with > the track focus colour. I think Steve's submission is a less painful yellow. If it's a different shade from the track focus color, might not be a problem. >If we can use colours for the Sync-Lock icon > in the Track Panel, why not use the current white? I think the yellow > would be very "loud" if used in the larger icon in Edit Toolbar. And if > colours used for the Sync-Lock icons in Edit Toolbar and Track Panel > don't match, that creates its own confusion. Whatever the choice, I agree they should match, and be relatively subdued (Steve thought the white is too bright). A rainbow-colored interface tends to confuse focus of attention. - Vaughan > > There are other issues in that Forum thread too, so I've commented > on them in situ: > http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=42068&p=108476#p108476 > > > > > > Gale > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nokia and AT&T present the 2010 Calling All Innovators-North America contest Create new apps & games for the Nokia N8 for consumers in U.S. and Canada $10 million total in prizes - $4M cash, 500 devices, nearly $6M in marketing Develop with Nokia Qt SDK, Web Runtime, or Java and Publish to Ovi Store http://p.sf.net/sfu/nokia-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Audacity-quality mailing list Aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-10-24 00:22:36
|
On 10/23/2010 8:35 AM, Peter Sampson wrote: >>>> ... Track Control Panel... > > Vaughan wrote: >>A "Control Panel" is a very specific term having to do with operating >>systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Panel_%28Windows%29, >>but I think the term originated on Mac), so I consider this conflation a >>very bad thing. > > I agree that the term "Control Panel" now indeed to most people > generally means the O/S Windows Control Panel or its Apple equivalent. > But that is by no means its only use. Many audio packages use the term > "Track Control Panel": Reaper, M-Audio, XO Wave, Adobe Audition, Studio > One from Presonus, Windows Media 9. And some video packages also use > the term: AVID, Apple's DVD Studio Pro, Sony's Vegas Movie Studio. Yikes. I feel it's unfortunate that's the case, but I didn't know that, so thanks for the info. > >>Happy to see it's apparently vanquished from the new manual (and >>"Control Panel" is used in the OS sense). Please don't use the term >>"Track Control Panel" so we can try to stop its propagation. > Yes I note that we now use the term "Track Panel" in the 1.3/2.0 > manual. Oh boy. I hadn't seen that, and it conflicts with the longstanding definition in the code, and what the developers mean by TrackPanel. (Any time I don't include the space, I'm talking about the C++ class specifically.) http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks says: "An audio track containing digital audio has a Track Panel, a vertical scale with units (except in the Pitch view) then the representation of the track itself... " So now "Track Panel" in the manual means what "Track Control Panel" used to mean. To me, that's less mnemonic, as "panel" is so generic. "Track Info" at least describes part of what's in there. How about "Track Controls" or "Track Controls Panel"? I'd even prefer to go back to "Track Control Panel" rather than blurring or changing the traditional meaning of TrackPanel. In the code, the TrackPanel class is the subwindow that has the time Ruler, scrollers, and all the tracks. Is there any term in the manual that means that? (I know I used "Track Panel" in that sense in the Mixer Board description in the manual, as that's the only sense I've known the term -- but now that it's linked to the definition of Track Panel at http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks#Track_Panel, that first sentence doesn't make sense -- MixerBoard is not an alternative to TrackInfo, it's an alternative to TrackPanel.) No wonder there's confusion in some of the discussions on lists. >I learned Audacity back in 1.2.4 days when we were still > calling it the "Track Control Panel" in the 1.2 docs - so that has > lingered for me ... > > >>In general, I like user-level terminology to match the terminology in >>the code. In the code, that frame/rectangle is called the Track Info -- >>but I agree that's not a fully descriptive name. > Agreed, and I agree that "Track Info" is not fully descriptive - "Info", > to me, implies information that can be viewed but not changed. Well, that's true of some of what's there, and probably why it originally got that name. >So > maybe the terminology in the code should be changed to match the "Track > Panel" that we are using in the user documentation. Historically, the term TrackPanel certainly came from the code (probably since 1999!), and meant a specific component of the design, "the subwindow that holds the tracks". Then, years later, I'm guessing, a manual writer, apparently unaware what TrackPanel meant, decided "Track Panel" was a better term for TrackInfo than "Track Control Panel" had been in the earlier documentation. And apparently no developer noticed the new, conflicting usage, so it's propagated through the manual. You agree the manual terms should match the code, but suggest we change the longstanding meaning in the code in rather than change the manual (whose definition was not based on the existing definition). There are 545 occurrences of TrackPanel in the code, 221 of TrackInfo, and all would have to change. I'd guess there are a few dozen occurrences in the manual. Every change in the code has a possibility of breaking something, maybe very subtle, and further delaying a stable release. It also forces the developers to adopt new terminology instead of the manual coming to agree with the longstanding meaning in the code. In short, no, we are not going to change the code to match the manual. And imo, "Track Panel" is not mnemonic for TrackInfo, so should be replaced in the manual anyway. I urge the manual change the meaning of Track Panel to match the code (and that's probably only in the Mixer Board description) and the other current occurrences be changed to something that's more mnemonic of what's called TrackInfo in the code, like "Track Controls." We could give up on having the terminology match, but that will just promote confusion down the line. Thanks, Vaughan |
From: Peter S. <pet...@ya...> - 2010-10-24 11:55:21
|
Hi Vaughan, thanks for that explanation of the TrackPanel C++ class in the Audacity code. As an end-user on this project, and not a coder, I hadn't really come across that before. And AFAIK there doesn't seem to be anywhere in the manual where, what the developers mean by, TrackPanel is referenced (or even needed as a user concept). And obviously I now agree that the use of the term "Track Panel" as currently used in the Beta manual is not just less mnemonic, but is wrong and should be changed. And in the light of the number of occurrences of TrackPanel/TrackInfo in the code (545/221 - yikes!) I certainly wouldn't want to change those either. So what do we call that little box, at the left of the track, for the benefit of end-users? The final choice is "above my pay-grade". But I quite like your suggestion of "Track Controls". We could then refer to it as both: "Track Controls" and "the Track Controls panel" (note the intended lower-case "p" on panel). But I would also be happy with "Track Controls Panel". Pluralizing the "Controls" affords some differentiation from the, now common, usage of the singular "Control Panel" in its operating system sense. You are right in that there are not many occurrences of it in the manual and the Wiki (there are a few mentions in the Forum too and those should probably also be changed for consistency). I will be happy to effect the edits - but to do that I do need a decision on what the nomenclature should be. Thanks, Peter. Peter Sampson Tel: +44 (0)1625 524 780 Mob: +44 (0)7732 278 299 ________________________________ From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> To: aud...@li... Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 1:23:03 AM Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Panel On 10/23/2010 8:35 AM, Peter Sampson wrote: >>>> ... Track Control Panel... > > Vaughan wrote: >>A "Control Panel" is a very specific term having to do with operating >>systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Panel_%28Windows%29, >>but I think the term originated on Mac), so I consider this conflation a >>very bad thing. > > I agree that the term "Control Panel" now indeed to most people > generally means the O/S Windows Control Panel or its Apple equivalent. > But that is by no means its only use. Many audio packages use the term > "Track Control Panel": Reaper, M-Audio, XO Wave, Adobe Audition, Studio > One from Presonus, Windows Media 9. And some video packages also use > the term: AVID, Apple's DVD Studio Pro, Sony's Vegas Movie Studio. Yikes. I feel it's unfortunate that's the case, but I didn't know that, so thanks for the info. > >>Happy to see it's apparently vanquished from the new manual (and >>"Control Panel" is used in the OS sense). Please don't use the term >>"Track Control Panel" so we can try to stop its propagation. > Yes I note that we now use the term "Track Panel" in the 1.3/2.0 > manual. Oh boy. I hadn't seen that, and it conflicts with the longstanding definition in the code, and what the developers mean by TrackPanel. (Any time I don't include the space, I'm talking about the C++ class specifically.) http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks says: "An audio track containing digital audio has a Track Panel, a vertical scale with units (except in the Pitch view) then the representation of the track itself... " So now "Track Panel" in the manual means what "Track Control Panel" used to mean. To me, that's less mnemonic, as "panel" is so generic. "Track Info" at least describes part of what's in there. How about "Track Controls" or "Track Controls Panel"? I'd even prefer to go back to "Track Control Panel" rather than blurring or changing the traditional meaning of TrackPanel. In the code, the TrackPanel class is the subwindow that has the time Ruler, scrollers, and all the tracks. Is there any term in the manual that means that? (I know I used "Track Panel" in that sense in the Mixer Board description in the manual, as that's the only sense I've known the term -- but now that it's linked to the definition of Track Panel at http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks#Track_Panel, that first sentence doesn't make sense -- MixerBoard is not an alternative to TrackInfo, it's an alternative to TrackPanel.) No wonder there's confusion in some of the discussions on lists. >I learned Audacity back in 1.2.4 days when we were still > calling it the "Track Control Panel" in the 1.2 docs - so that has > lingered for me ... > > >>In general, I like user-level terminology to match the terminology in >>the code. In the code, that frame/rectangle is called the Track Info -- >>but I agree that's not a fully descriptive name. > Agreed, and I agree that "Track Info" is not fully descriptive - "Info", > to me, implies information that can be viewed but not changed. Well, that's true of some of what's there, and probably why it originally got that name. >So > maybe the terminology in the code should be changed to match the "Track > Panel" that we are using in the user documentation. Historically, the term TrackPanel certainly came from the code (probably since 1999!), and meant a specific component of the design, "the subwindow that holds the tracks". Then, years later, I'm guessing, a manual writer, apparently unaware what TrackPanel meant, decided "Track Panel" was a better term for TrackInfo than "Track Control Panel" had been in the earlier documentation. And apparently no developer noticed the new, conflicting usage, so it's propagated through the manual. You agree the manual terms should match the code, but suggest we change the longstanding meaning in the code in rather than change the manual (whose definition was not based on the existing definition). There are 545 occurrences of TrackPanel in the code, 221 of TrackInfo, and all would have to change. I'd guess there are a few dozen occurrences in the manual. Every change in the code has a possibility of breaking something, maybe very subtle, and further delaying a stable release. It also forces the developers to adopt new terminology instead of the manual coming to agree with the longstanding meaning in the code. In short, no, we are not going to change the code to match the manual. And imo, "Track Panel" is not mnemonic for TrackInfo, so should be replaced in the manual anyway. I urge the manual change the meaning of Track Panel to match the code (and that's probably only in the Mixer Board description) and the other current occurrences be changed to something that's more mnemonic of what's called TrackInfo in the code, like "Track Controls." We could give up on having the terminology match, but that will just promote confusion down the line. Thanks, Vaughan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nokia and AT&T present the 2010 Calling All Innovators-North America contest Create new apps & games for the Nokia N8 for consumers in U.S. and Canada $10 million total in prizes - $4M cash, 500 devices, nearly $6M in marketing Develop with Nokia Qt SDK, Web Runtime, or Java and Publish to Ovi Store http://p.sf.net/sfu/nokia-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Audacity-quality mailing list Aud...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-10-24 21:17:48
|
Vaughan wrote: > I'm guessing, a manual writer, apparently unaware what TrackPanel meant, > decided "Track Panel" was a better term for TrackInfo than "Track Control > Panel" had been in the earlier documentation. And apparently no developer > noticed the new, conflicting usage, so it's propagated through the manual I think this is an unfortunate situation, because I'd argue the naming of the TrackInfo class and even perhaps TrackPanel was undescriptive. Hence to be more meaningful, the old Manual did not follow the naming in the code and TrackInfo was called "tracks Control Panel" or "Controls": http://audacity.sourceforge.net/onlinehelp-1.2/track_audio.htm This itself was not ideal for the OS-association reasons Vaughan points out, so a mutation to "Track Panel" started somewhere. I can't remember ever using anything other than "Track Panel". I think the reason it propagated and persisted is that it's understood by users, which is the main point of the exercise for me. Peter wrote: > And obviously I now agree that the use of the term "Track Panel" as currently > used in the Beta manual is not just less mnemonic, but is wrong and should be > changed. I think it's only really partially "wrong" because the name of the "TrackPanel" class is ambiguous. Why not "TrackContainer"? > And in the light of the number of occurrences of TrackPanel/TrackInfo in the > code (545/221 - yikes!) I certainly wouldn't want to change those either. Agreed - out of the question. But the "Track Panel" term is very well ensconced now; it has about 90 instances on the main Wiki by the way. I don't see an absolute imperative to change it given it says "Track Panel" and not "TrackPanel", unless we feel "Track Panel" is seriously deficient in meaning. I don't think it is, or we'd know about it. If we did keep "Track Panel" in the Manual and Wiki though, we would have to clear up the few Wiki uses of it where it really means "TrackPanel" e.g.: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Gui_Plug-ins No end-user who installs or unzips Audacity will be confused by "Track Panel", only possibly people compiling it or working with the code. Anyone who clicks a link in the Manual for "Track Panel" can see what it means. If we change "Track Panel", calling it "TrackInfo" (or "Track Info") is I think out of the question, because it implies only the area between the Mute/Solo buttons and the Track Drop-Down Menu. So we're not going to have the naming of all elements in the Manual and code match anyway. > So what do we call that little box, at the left of the track, for the benefit of > end-users? The final choice is "above my pay-grade". But I quite like your > suggestion of "Track Controls". We could then refer to it as both: "Track > Controls" and "the Track Controls panel" (note the intended lower-case "p" on > panel). But I would also be happy with "Track Controls Panel". > > Pluralizing the "Controls" affords some differentiation from the, now common, > usage of the singular "Control Panel" in its operating system sense. I think we have to refer to it as a unique term, not two. I think the "Controls" are a much more important part of TrackInfo than the "Information", but the very important Track Drop-Down Menu can hardly be called a "control" as a user would understand it. "Control" or "Controls" invites confusion with Control Toolbar. "Panel" is of course a bit generic but I don't sense any user confusion with it. Another consideration is that we can't tell user to click on the "Track Controls" when selecting the track; doing so literally would change the gain/pan state. I don't have any bright ideas for a new name right now, but I can see a lot of pain in changing "Track Panel" with only minimal offsetting advantage. I won't stand in the way of a consensus to change "Track Panel", but I'm -1 on changing it unless there is a completely convincing name to replace it with. Gale > From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > To: aud...@li... > Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 1:23:03 AM > Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track > Panel > > On 10/23/2010 8:35 AM, Peter Sampson wrote: > >>>> ... Track Control Panel... > > > > Vaughan wrote: > >>A "Control Panel" is a very specific term having to do with operating > >>systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Panel_%28Windows%29, > >>but I think the term originated on Mac), so I consider this conflation a > >>very bad thing. > > > > I agree that the term "Control Panel" now indeed to most people > > generally means the O/S Windows Control Panel or its Apple equivalent. > > But that is by no means its only use. Many audio packages use the term > > "Track Control Panel": Reaper, M-Audio, XO Wave, Adobe Audition, Studio > > One from Presonus, Windows Media 9. And some video packages also use > > the term: AVID, Apple's DVD Studio Pro, Sony's Vegas Movie Studio. > > Yikes. I feel it's unfortunate that's the case, but I didn't know that, > so thanks for the info. > > > > > >>Happy to see it's apparently vanquished from the new manual (and > >>"Control Panel" is used in the OS sense). Please don't use the term > >>"Track Control Panel" so we can try to stop its propagation. > > Yes I note that we now use the term "Track Panel" in the 1.3/2.0 > > manual. > > Oh boy. I hadn't seen that, and it conflicts with the longstanding > definition in the code, and what the developers mean by TrackPanel. (Any > time I don't include the space, I'm talking about the C++ class > specifically.) > > http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks says: > > "An audio track containing digital audio has a Track Panel, a vertical > scale with units (except in the Pitch view) then the representation of > the track itself... " > > So now "Track Panel" in the manual means what "Track Control Panel" used > to mean. To me, that's less mnemonic, as "panel" is so generic. "Track > Info" at least describes part of what's in there. How about "Track > Controls" or "Track Controls Panel"? I'd even prefer to go back to > "Track Control Panel" rather than blurring or changing the traditional > meaning of TrackPanel. > > In the code, the TrackPanel class is the subwindow that has the time > Ruler, scrollers, and all the tracks. Is there any term in the manual > that means that? (I know I used "Track Panel" in that sense in the Mixer > Board description in the manual, as that's the only sense I've known the > term -- but now that it's linked to the definition of Track Panel at > http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks#Track_Panel, > that first sentence doesn't make sense -- MixerBoard is not an > alternative to TrackInfo, it's an alternative to TrackPanel.) > > No wonder there's confusion in some of the discussions on lists. > > > >I learned Audacity back in 1.2.4 days when we were still > > calling it the "Track Control Panel" in the 1.2 docs - so that has > > lingered for me ... > > > > > >>In general, I like user-level terminology to match the terminology in > >>the code. In the code, that frame/rectangle is called the Track Info -- > >>but I agree that's not a fully descriptive name. > > Agreed, and I agree that "Track Info" is not fully descriptive - "Info", > > to me, implies information that can be viewed but not changed. > > Well, that's true of some of what's there, and probably why it > originally got that name. > > > >So > > maybe the terminology in the code should be changed to match the "Track > > Panel" that we are using in the user documentation. > > Historically, the term TrackPanel certainly came from the code (probably > since 1999!), and meant a specific component of the design, "the > subwindow that holds the tracks". Then, years later, I'm guessing, a > manual writer, apparently unaware what TrackPanel meant, decided "Track > Panel" was a better term for TrackInfo than "Track Control Panel" had > been in the earlier documentation. And apparently no developer noticed > the new, conflicting usage, so it's propagated through the manual. > > You agree the manual terms should match the code, but suggest we change > the longstanding meaning in the code in rather than change the manual > (whose definition was not based on the existing definition). There are > 545 occurrences of TrackPanel in the code, 221 of TrackInfo, and all > would have to change. I'd guess there are a few dozen occurrences in the > manual. Every change in the code has a possibility of breaking > something, maybe very subtle, and further delaying a stable release. It > also forces the developers to adopt new terminology instead of the > manual coming to agree with the longstanding meaning in the code. In > short, no, we are not going to change the code to match the manual. And > imo, "Track Panel" is not mnemonic for TrackInfo, so should be replaced > in the manual anyway. > > I urge the manual change the meaning of Track Panel to match the code > (and that's probably only in the Mixer Board description) and the other > current occurrences be changed to something that's more mnemonic of > what's called TrackInfo in the code, like "Track Controls." > > We could give up on having the terminology match, but that will just > promote confusion down the line. > > Thanks, > Vaughan |
From: Bill W. <bi...@go...> - 2010-10-25 00:57:47
|
+1 on keeping "Track Panel" as documented in the manual. It's the "panel" at the left end of the "track". "TrackPanel" in the code could, I suppose, have just as easily been called "TrackView" back in the day, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. No-one is suggesting we stop referring to "audio tracks" because they're called "WaveTracks" in the code? -- Bill On 24-Oct-10, at 5:17 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > Vaughan wrote: >> I'm guessing, a manual writer, apparently unaware what TrackPanel >> meant, >> decided "Track Panel" was a better term for TrackInfo than "Track >> Control >> Panel" had been in the earlier documentation. And apparently no >> developer >> noticed the new, conflicting usage, so it's propagated through the >> manual > > I think this is an unfortunate situation, because I'd argue the > naming of > the TrackInfo class and even perhaps TrackPanel was undescriptive. > Hence to be more meaningful, the old Manual did not follow the naming > in the code and TrackInfo was called "tracks Control Panel" or > "Controls": > http://audacity.sourceforge.net/onlinehelp-1.2/track_audio.htm > > This itself was not ideal for the OS-association reasons Vaughan > points out, > so a mutation to "Track Panel" started somewhere. I can't remember > ever > using anything other than "Track Panel". I think the reason it > propagated > and persisted is that it's understood by users, which is the main > point of the > exercise for me. > > Peter wrote: >> And obviously I now agree that the use of the term "Track Panel" as >> currently >> used in the Beta manual is not just less mnemonic, but is wrong and >> should be >> changed. > > I think it's only really partially "wrong" because the name of the > "TrackPanel" > class is ambiguous. Why not "TrackContainer"? > > >> And in the light of the number of occurrences of TrackPanel/ >> TrackInfo in the >> code (545/221 - yikes!) I certainly wouldn't want to change those >> either. > > Agreed - out of the question. But the "Track Panel" term is very well > ensconced now; it has about 90 instances on the main Wiki by the way. > I don't see an absolute imperative to change it given it says "Track > Panel" > and not "TrackPanel", unless we feel "Track Panel" is seriously > deficient > in meaning. I don't think it is, or we'd know about it. > > If we did keep "Track Panel" in the Manual and Wiki though, we would > have to clear up the few Wiki uses of it where it really means > "TrackPanel" > e.g.: > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Gui_Plug-ins > > No end-user who installs or unzips Audacity will be confused by "Track > Panel", only possibly people compiling it or working with the code. > Anyone who clicks a link in the Manual for "Track Panel" can see what > it means. > > If we change "Track Panel", calling it "TrackInfo" (or "Track Info") > is > I think out of the question, because it implies only the area > between the > Mute/Solo buttons and the Track Drop-Down Menu. So we're not going > to have the naming of all elements in the Manual and code match > anyway. > > >> So what do we call that little box, at the left of the track, for >> the benefit of >> end-users? The final choice is "above my pay-grade". But I quite >> like your >> suggestion of "Track Controls". We could then refer to it as both: >> "Track >> Controls" and "the Track Controls panel" (note the intended lower- >> case "p" on >> panel). But I would also be happy with "Track Controls Panel". >> >> Pluralizing the "Controls" affords some differentiation from the, >> now common, >> usage of the singular "Control Panel" in its operating system sense. > > I think we have to refer to it as a unique term, not two. > > I think the "Controls" are a much more important part of TrackInfo > than the > "Information", but the very important Track Drop-Down Menu can hardly > be called a "control" as a user would understand it. "Control" or > "Controls" > invites confusion with Control Toolbar. > > "Panel" is of course a bit generic but I don't sense any user > confusion with > it. > > Another consideration is that we can't tell user to click on the > "Track > Controls" when selecting the track; doing so literally would change > the > gain/pan state. > > I don't have any bright ideas for a new name right now, but I can > see a > lot of pain in changing "Track Panel" with only minimal offsetting > advantage. I won't stand in the way of a consensus to change > "Track Panel", but I'm -1 on changing it unless there is a completely > convincing name to replace it with. > > > > > Gale > > > >> From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 1:23:03 AM >> Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock >> icon in Track >> Panel >> >> On 10/23/2010 8:35 AM, Peter Sampson wrote: >>>>>> ... Track Control Panel... >>> >>> Vaughan wrote: >>>> A "Control Panel" is a very specific term having to do with >>>> operating >>>> systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Panel_%28Windows%29 >>>> , >>>> but I think the term originated on Mac), so I consider this >>>> conflation a >>>> very bad thing. >>> >>> I agree that the term "Control Panel" now indeed to most people >>> generally means the O/S Windows Control Panel or its Apple >>> equivalent. >>> But that is by no means its only use. Many audio packages use the >>> term >>> "Track Control Panel": Reaper, M-Audio, XO Wave, Adobe Audition, >>> Studio >>> One from Presonus, Windows Media 9. And some video packages also >>> use >>> the term: AVID, Apple's DVD Studio Pro, Sony's Vegas Movie Studio. >> >> Yikes. I feel it's unfortunate that's the case, but I didn't know >> that, >> so thanks for the info. >> >> >>> >>>> Happy to see it's apparently vanquished from the new manual (and >>>> "Control Panel" is used in the OS sense). Please don't use the term >>>> "Track Control Panel" so we can try to stop its propagation. >>> Yes I note that we now use the term "Track Panel" in the 1.3/2.0 >>> manual. >> >> Oh boy. I hadn't seen that, and it conflicts with the longstanding >> definition in the code, and what the developers mean by TrackPanel. >> (Any >> time I don't include the space, I'm talking about the C++ class >> specifically.) >> >> http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks says: >> >> "An audio track containing digital audio has a Track Panel, a >> vertical >> scale with units (except in the Pitch view) then the representation >> of >> the track itself... " >> >> So now "Track Panel" in the manual means what "Track Control Panel" >> used >> to mean. To me, that's less mnemonic, as "panel" is so generic. >> "Track >> Info" at least describes part of what's in there. How about "Track >> Controls" or "Track Controls Panel"? I'd even prefer to go back to >> "Track Control Panel" rather than blurring or changing the >> traditional >> meaning of TrackPanel. >> >> In the code, the TrackPanel class is the subwindow that has the time >> Ruler, scrollers, and all the tracks. Is there any term in the manual >> that means that? (I know I used "Track Panel" in that sense in the >> Mixer >> Board description in the manual, as that's the only sense I've >> known the >> term -- but now that it's linked to the definition of Track Panel at >> http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks#Track_Panel >> , >> that first sentence doesn't make sense -- MixerBoard is not an >> alternative to TrackInfo, it's an alternative to TrackPanel.) >> >> No wonder there's confusion in some of the discussions on lists. >> >> >>> I learned Audacity back in 1.2.4 days when we were still >>> calling it the "Track Control Panel" in the 1.2 docs - so that has >>> lingered for me ... >>> >>> >>>> In general, I like user-level terminology to match the >>>> terminology in >>>> the code. In the code, that frame/rectangle is called the Track >>>> Info -- >>>> but I agree that's not a fully descriptive name. >>> Agreed, and I agree that "Track Info" is not fully descriptive - >>> "Info", >>> to me, implies information that can be viewed but not changed. >> >> Well, that's true of some of what's there, and probably why it >> originally got that name. >> >> >>> So >>> maybe the terminology in the code should be changed to match the >>> "Track >>> Panel" that we are using in the user documentation. >> >> Historically, the term TrackPanel certainly came from the code >> (probably >> since 1999!), and meant a specific component of the design, "the >> subwindow that holds the tracks". Then, years later, I'm guessing, a >> manual writer, apparently unaware what TrackPanel meant, decided >> "Track >> Panel" was a better term for TrackInfo than "Track Control Panel" had >> been in the earlier documentation. And apparently no developer >> noticed >> the new, conflicting usage, so it's propagated through the manual. >> >> You agree the manual terms should match the code, but suggest we >> change >> the longstanding meaning in the code in rather than change the manual >> (whose definition was not based on the existing definition). There >> are >> 545 occurrences of TrackPanel in the code, 221 of TrackInfo, and all >> would have to change. I'd guess there are a few dozen occurrences >> in the >> manual. Every change in the code has a possibility of breaking >> something, maybe very subtle, and further delaying a stable >> release. It >> also forces the developers to adopt new terminology instead of the >> manual coming to agree with the longstanding meaning in the code. In >> short, no, we are not going to change the code to match the manual. >> And >> imo, "Track Panel" is not mnemonic for TrackInfo, so should be >> replaced >> in the manual anyway. >> >> I urge the manual change the meaning of Track Panel to match the code >> (and that's probably only in the Mixer Board description) and the >> other >> current occurrences be changed to something that's more mnemonic of >> what's called TrackInfo in the code, like "Track Controls." >> >> We could give up on having the terminology match, but that will just >> promote confusion down the line. >> >> Thanks, >> Vaughan > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Nokia and AT&T present the 2010 Calling All Innovators-North America > contest > Create new apps & games for the Nokia N8 for consumers in U.S. and > Canada > $10 million total in prizes - $4M cash, 500 devices, nearly $6M in > marketing > Develop with Nokia Qt SDK, Web Runtime, or Java and Publish to Ovi > Store > http://p.sf.net/sfu/nokia-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-10-25 22:41:13
|
On 10/24/2010 2:17 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > Vaughan wrote: >> I'm guessing, a manual writer, apparently unaware what TrackPanel meant, >> decided "Track Panel" was a better term for TrackInfo than "Track Control >> Panel" had been in the earlier documentation. And apparently no developer >> noticed the new, conflicting usage, so it's propagated through the manual > > I think this is an unfortunate situation, because I'd argue the naming of > the TrackInfo class and even perhaps TrackPanel was undescriptive. TrackInfo yes, and as I wrote, probably historical and perfectly sensible at the time. Before my time. Not worth changing. TrackPanel no -- very typical and clear meaning for software GUI. In fact, it's a descendant of wxWidgets' wxPanel class, and we had nothing to do with that name, it's just common nomenclature. So in a very literal sense it *is* a GUI panel, and it shows tracks, so TrackPanel is totally appropriate and descriptive. > Hence to be more meaningful, the old Manual did not follow the naming > in the code and TrackInfo was called "tracks Control Panel" or "Controls": > http://audacity.sourceforge.net/onlinehelp-1.2/track_audio.htm There are lots of other controls in the interface, so "Controls" alone is appropriate in the context of that page, but not elsewhere. > > This itself was not ideal for the OS-association reasons Vaughan points out, > so a mutation to "Track Panel" started somewhere. I can't remember ever > using anything other than "Track Panel". Heh, and that's why we've had some confusing discussions on -devel and probably here, where developers and QA folks had certain but conflicting definitions, so weren't even discussing the same thing. >I think the reason it propagated > and persisted is that it's understood by users, which is the main point of the > exercise for me. I'd expect "Track Controls" with or without "Panel" would be better understood by users, to whom "panel" doesn't have a very specific meaning. They don't know the GUI definition of "panel", and it has lots of completely unrelated definitions in general usage (e.g., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panel), so is ambiguous. > > Peter wrote: >> And obviously I now agree that the use of the term "Track Panel" as currently >> used in the Beta manual is not just less mnemonic, but is wrong and should be >> changed. > > I think it's only really partially "wrong" because the name of the "TrackPanel" > class is ambiguous. Not at all ambiguous to software engineers. >Why not "TrackContainer"? Because a "container" class means something else altogether in software engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_%28data_structure%29). "Panel" is entirely appropriate and standard. > > >> And in the light of the number of occurrences of TrackPanel/TrackInfo in the >> code (545/221 - yikes!) I certainly wouldn't want to change those either. > > Agreed - out of the question. So I wonder why you suggested "TrackContainer"... >But the "Track Panel" term is very well > ensconced now; it has about 90 instances on the main Wiki by the way. > I don't see an absolute imperative to change it given it says "Track Panel" > and not "TrackPanel", unless we feel "Track Panel" is seriously deficient > in meaning. I don't think it is, or we'd know about it. Two reasons already stated: 1) cognitive dissonance and confusion in discussions involving developers 2) Without "Controls", it's not very mnemonic. I doubt you'd hear about confusion from users, they'd just have a vague notion of what it refers to and probably not ask about it. But if most places you use it, you also have to (re)define it, that's an indicator. For example, on http://wiki.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Splitting_recordings_into_separate_tracks, "...Track Panel (where the mute/solo buttons are)..." occurs twice on the same page. Same phrase appears on http://wiki.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Creating_a_simple_voice_and_music_Podcast_with_Audacity. And on http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Track_Drop-Down_Menu, "Move a track up or down in the track panel of the project window" seems more like the TrackPanel meaning, because you can't move a track within its TrackInfo. I see also on that page, "The Track drop-down menu is accessed by clicking the downward pointing arrow beside the track name." But the whole control is a drop-down menu, you don't have to click on the triangle (not actually an arrow) -- anywhere in that rectangle will do. (And I'm amazed you have to explain this, but have no doubt it's required. The triangle is a totally typical GUI indicator for a drop-down menu, since the late 1980's. Astonishing so many users apparently don't recognize that. I see five of them in Thunderbird's toolbar as I type this.) > > If we did keep "Track Panel" in the Manual and Wiki though, we would > have to clear up the few Wiki uses of it where it really means "TrackPanel" > e.g.: > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Gui_Plug-ins Yes. Probably anyplace the term was written by a developer, he meant TrackPanel. > > No end-user who installs or unzips Audacity will be confused by "Track > Panel", ... Maybe not confused, but probably non-plussed, as it doesn't obviously mean the thingy at the left of the track that has *controls*, because "controls" is not part of the name. Adding "Controls" will obviously help clarify that. >...only possibly people compiling it or working with the code. > Anyone who clicks a link in the Manual for "Track Panel" can see what > it means. > > If we change "Track Panel", calling it "TrackInfo" (or "Track Info") is... Gale, nobody has suggested that, so there's no point in discussing it. >... I think out of the question, because it implies only the area between the > Mute/Solo buttons and the Track Drop-Down Menu. So we're not going > to have the naming of all elements in the Manual and code match anyway. Umm, that's the only one we're discussing, right? And anyway, that's no reason to give up on all of them, and especially to have two meanings for the same term (reason 1 above). (There are plenty of occurrences where developers write "track panel" informally meaning TrackPanel.) More to the point, why are you so apparently opposed to changing it to "Track Controls" (or "Track Controls Panel"), when it will obviously clarify the term? If it's simply the number of occurrences, a decent text editor can handle it in one command. > > >> So what do we call that little box, at the left of the track, for the benefit of >> end-users? The final choice is "above my pay-grade". But I quite like your >> suggestion of "Track Controls". We could then refer to it as both: "Track >> Controls" and "the Track Controls panel" (note the intended lower-case "p" on >> panel). But I would also be happy with "Track Controls Panel". >> >> Pluralizing the "Controls" affords some differentiation from the, now common, >> usage of the singular "Control Panel" in its operating system sense. > > I think we have to refer to it as a unique term, not two. I don't think he was suggesting that, he was saying the name is "Track Controls" -- that's why he pointed out lower-case "p", because panel is not part of the proper name, so not capitalized. Btw, "the" is not part of the name either, so on http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks, in the blue box, in "The panel on the left of the audio (The Track Panel) has controls..." it should be "(the Track Panel)". Of course, if it's called "Track Controls" instead, you wouldn't have to say it contains controls -- could just be "The Track Controls panel is at the left of the audio. Click on the track name at the top of that panel to see a drop-down menu with more track-specific commands." (Included the whole thing because that second sentence currently has no period. Also, the title is not "easily overlooked" (so the modifier is in the wrong place), it's that some people don't recognize that it's a menu. And I don't think that fact is "easily" overlooked -- it's hard for anyone who knows what the downward triangle means, to think it's not a drop-down! And active voice is preferable, generally.) Well, there's another one -- tracks have names, not titles. I changed it to "track name" as it then matches the first command in the menu, "Name...". > > I think the "Controls" are a much more important part of TrackInfo than the > "Information", but the very important Track Drop-Down Menu can hardly > be called a "control" as a user would understand it. Of course a drop-down menu is a "control", ever since there have been GUI's. >"Control" or "Controls" > invites confusion with Control Toolbar. Nobody is suggesting "Controls" alone. It's not confusing if it's "Track Controls". > > "Panel" is of course a bit generic but I don't sense any user confusion with > it. You're repeating yourself. > > Another consideration is that we can't tell user to click on the "Track > Controls" when selecting the track; doing so literally would change the > gain/pan state. So that is a +1 to Peter's suggestion of "Track Controls panel" (small p). Specifically in that case, "blank space in the Track Controls panel". Or just use "Track Controls Panel". > > I don't have any bright ideas for a new name right now, but I can see a > lot of pain in changing "Track Panel" with only minimal offsetting > advantage. I won't stand in the way of a consensus to change > "Track Panel", but I'm -1 on changing it unless there is a completely > convincing name to replace it with. > I see the advantage as significant, to developers and users. I read your anticipation of pain as meaning hours of work. Not a good reason to leave something broken, generally, and I think a global replace to "Track Controls Panel" would do the trick, and not require as much review as "Track Controls". - Vaughan > > > > Gale > > > >> From: Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> To: aud...@li... >> Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 1:23:03 AM >> Subject: Re: [Audacity-quality] Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track >> Panel >> >> On 10/23/2010 8:35 AM, Peter Sampson wrote: >>>>>> ... Track Control Panel... >>> >>> Vaughan wrote: >>>> A "Control Panel" is a very specific term having to do with operating >>>> systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Panel_%28Windows%29, >>>> but I think the term originated on Mac), so I consider this conflation a >>>> very bad thing. >>> >>> I agree that the term "Control Panel" now indeed to most people >>> generally means the O/S Windows Control Panel or its Apple equivalent. >>> But that is by no means its only use. Many audio packages use the term >>> "Track Control Panel": Reaper, M-Audio, XO Wave, Adobe Audition, Studio >>> One from Presonus, Windows Media 9. And some video packages also use >>> the term: AVID, Apple's DVD Studio Pro, Sony's Vegas Movie Studio. >> >> Yikes. I feel it's unfortunate that's the case, but I didn't know that, >> so thanks for the info. >> >> >>> >>>> Happy to see it's apparently vanquished from the new manual (and >>>> "Control Panel" is used in the OS sense). Please don't use the term >>>> "Track Control Panel" so we can try to stop its propagation. >>> Yes I note that we now use the term "Track Panel" in the 1.3/2.0 >>> manual. >> >> Oh boy. I hadn't seen that, and it conflicts with the longstanding >> definition in the code, and what the developers mean by TrackPanel. (Any >> time I don't include the space, I'm talking about the C++ class >> specifically.) >> >> http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks says: >> >> "An audio track containing digital audio has a Track Panel, a vertical >> scale with units (except in the Pitch view) then the representation of >> the track itself... " >> >> So now "Track Panel" in the manual means what "Track Control Panel" used >> to mean. To me, that's less mnemonic, as "panel" is so generic. "Track >> Info" at least describes part of what's in there. How about "Track >> Controls" or "Track Controls Panel"? I'd even prefer to go back to >> "Track Control Panel" rather than blurring or changing the traditional >> meaning of TrackPanel. >> >> In the code, the TrackPanel class is the subwindow that has the time >> Ruler, scrollers, and all the tracks. Is there any term in the manual >> that means that? (I know I used "Track Panel" in that sense in the Mixer >> Board description in the manual, as that's the only sense I've known the >> term -- but now that it's linked to the definition of Track Panel at >> http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks#Track_Panel, >> that first sentence doesn't make sense -- MixerBoard is not an >> alternative to TrackInfo, it's an alternative to TrackPanel.) >> >> No wonder there's confusion in some of the discussions on lists. >> >> >>> I learned Audacity back in 1.2.4 days when we were still >>> calling it the "Track Control Panel" in the 1.2 docs - so that has >>> lingered for me ... >>> >>> >>>> In general, I like user-level terminology to match the terminology in >>>> the code. In the code, that frame/rectangle is called the Track Info -- >>>> but I agree that's not a fully descriptive name. >>> Agreed, and I agree that "Track Info" is not fully descriptive - "Info", >>> to me, implies information that can be viewed but not changed. >> >> Well, that's true of some of what's there, and probably why it >> originally got that name. >> >> >>> So >>> maybe the terminology in the code should be changed to match the "Track >>> Panel" that we are using in the user documentation. >> >> Historically, the term TrackPanel certainly came from the code (probably >> since 1999!), and meant a specific component of the design, "the >> subwindow that holds the tracks". Then, years later, I'm guessing, a >> manual writer, apparently unaware what TrackPanel meant, decided "Track >> Panel" was a better term for TrackInfo than "Track Control Panel" had >> been in the earlier documentation. And apparently no developer noticed >> the new, conflicting usage, so it's propagated through the manual. >> >> You agree the manual terms should match the code, but suggest we change >> the longstanding meaning in the code in rather than change the manual >> (whose definition was not based on the existing definition). There are >> 545 occurrences of TrackPanel in the code, 221 of TrackInfo, and all >> would have to change. I'd guess there are a few dozen occurrences in the >> manual. Every change in the code has a possibility of breaking >> something, maybe very subtle, and further delaying a stable release. It >> also forces the developers to adopt new terminology instead of the >> manual coming to agree with the longstanding meaning in the code. In >> short, no, we are not going to change the code to match the manual. And >> imo, "Track Panel" is not mnemonic for TrackInfo, so should be replaced >> in the manual anyway. >> >> I urge the manual change the meaning of Track Panel to match the code >> (and that's probably only in the Mixer Board description) and the other >> current occurrences be changed to something that's more mnemonic of >> what's called TrackInfo in the code, like "Track Controls." >> >> We could give up on having the terminology match, but that will just >> promote confusion down the line. >> >> Thanks, >> Vaughan > |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2010-10-26 00:13:19
|
<snip> But the whole control is a drop-down menu, you don't have to click on the triangle (not actually an arrow) -- anywhere in that rectangle will do. (And I'm amazed you have to explain this, but have no doubt it's required. The triangle is a totally typical GUI indicator for a drop-down menu, since the late 1980's. Astonishing so many users apparently don't recognize that. </snip> Be amazed - posts to the forum indicate that it is a very commonly missed feature. We have entire threads dedicated to TLBT (That Little Black Triangle). On the forum I think we have settled on "Click on the track name". +1 for "Track Controls panel" or Track Controls Panel" I'm not going to get picky about capitalisation, or even any plurals involved, but IMO it's much more clear than "Track Controls" (which to my mind is the actual sliders rather than the entire rectangle) or "Tracks Panel" (which to my mind is the main Window where the tracks are located. End of my 2p. Steve |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-10-26 03:56:56
|
On 10/25/2010 5:13 PM, Steve the Fiddle wrote: > <snip> > But the > whole control is a drop-down menu, you don't have to click on the > triangle (not actually an arrow) -- anywhere in that rectangle will do. > (And I'm amazed you have to explain this, but have no doubt it's > required. The triangle is a totally typical GUI indicator for a > drop-down menu, since the late 1980's. Astonishing so many users > apparently don't recognize that. > </snip> > > Be amazed - posts to the forum indicate that it is a very commonly > missed feature. > We have entire threads dedicated to TLBT (That Little Black Triangle). > On the forum I think we have settled on "Click on the track name". Yes, it should stand... said "have no doubt it's required" (but as "triangle" over "arrow"). Blessings on people who are just learning. I certainly am. > > +1 for "Track Controls panel" or Track Controls Panel" > I'm not going to get picky about capitalisation, or even any plurals > involved, but IMO it's much more clear than "Track Controls" (which to > my mind is the actual sliders rather than the entire rectangle)... I agree. All 3 words -- prefer as proper name, "Track Controls Panel". >... or > "Tracks Panel" (which to my mind is the main Window where the tracks > are located. > Hey, that's the TrackPanel class! - V |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-10-26 06:19:04
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:41:42 -0700 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was: Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Panel > ... And on > http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Track_Drop-Down_Menu, > "Move a track up or down in the track panel of the project window" seems > more like the TrackPanel meaning, because you can't move a track within > its TrackInfo. Yes, good catch, it's not very clear, but I don't think it means what you think it does. I think it means "move up or down in the vertical space occupied by TrackInfo". I changed it to "Move a track up or down in the project window". > I see also on that page, "The Track drop-down menu is accessed by > clicking the downward pointing arrow beside the track name." But the > whole control is a drop-down menu, you don't have to click on the > triangle (not actually an arrow) -- anywhere in that rectangle will do. Yes, the page hasn't been proof-read. Changed to "The Track Drop-Down Menu is accessed by clicking in the Track Name where the downward- pointing triangle can be seen". > Btw, "the" is not part of the name either, so on > http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks, in the blue > box, in "The panel on the left of the audio (The Track Panel) has > controls..." it should be "(the Track Panel)". Also now fixed. > ... There are plenty of occurrences where developers write "track > panel" informally meaning TrackPanel. Shouldn't we be aiming to write exactly "TrackPanel" when we mean that class, irrespective? > More to the point, why are you so apparently opposed to changing it to > "Track Controls" (or "Track Controls Panel"), when it will obviously > clarify the term? If it's simply the number of occurrences, a decent > text editor can handle it in one command. > > > I think the "Controls" are a much more important part of TrackInfo than the > > "Information", but the very important Track Drop-Down Menu can hardly > > be called a "control" as a user would understand it. > > Of course a drop-down menu is a "control", ever since there have been > GUI's. You miss the point, Vaughan. I know it's a control. That's why I said "as a user would understand it". Believe me, the only thing most users will see as a "control" are the two sliders. That's why Steve says "Track Controls Panel" is much clearer than "Track Controls". It's also the main reason why I think "Track Controls Panel" will be much more confusing than "Track Panel" - "Track Controls Panel" will be potentially seen as the area containing the sliders instead of the whole TrackInfo. > I read your anticipation of pain as meaning hours of work. Not a good > reason to leave something broken It isn't broken for the audience of the Manual. Of course it's work to change (three words is another word for support people to write out every time they answer a question too!). But for me the main problem is including "Controls" in the description. As Bill says, the only problem with "Track Panel" is that "TrackPanel" is the name of a class that happens to mean something else, hence our problem. My -1 (which as I said, is not a veto) is on replacing "Track Panel" with something that is less descriptive/more confusing for the average user. I believe "Track Controls Panel" is such, even though the best idea so far. If the consensus is to change "Track Panel", I just hope I or someone can dream up some other alternative. We've had loads of appreciative e-mails about how much less "geeky" the 1.3 Manual is compared to that for 1.2. I vote for continuing that trend. PS Thanks for the explanations of "Panels" and "Containers" as understood by software engineers. Gale |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-10-26 20:09:49
|
On 10/25/2010 11:18 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:41:42 -0700 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was: Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Panel >> ... And on >> http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Track_Drop-Down_Menu, >> "Move a track up or down in the track panel of the project window" seems >> more like the TrackPanel meaning, because you can't move a track within >> its TrackInfo. > > Yes, good catch, it's not very clear, but I don't think it means what you > think it does. I think it means "move up or down in the vertical space > occupied by TrackInfo". I changed it to "Move a track up or down in the > project window". So there, you're using "project window" pretty much as TrackPanel -- so there is an existing term in the manual corresponding to TrackPanel! Actually, the Project window is the whole Audacity frame (menus, toolbars, TrackPanel). > > >> I see also on that page, "The Track drop-down menu is accessed by >> clicking the downward pointing arrow beside the track name." But the >> whole control is a drop-down menu, you don't have to click on the >> triangle (not actually an arrow) -- anywhere in that rectangle will do. > > Yes, the page hasn't been proof-read. Changed to "The Track Drop-Down > Menu is accessed by clicking in the Track Name where the downward- > pointing triangle can be seen". "The Track Drop-Down Menu is accessed by clicking on the rectangle with the Track Name and downward-pointing triangle." Simpler, I think. > > <snip> >> ... There are plenty of occurrences where developers write "track >> panel" informally meaning TrackPanel. > > Shouldn't we be aiming to write exactly "TrackPanel" when we mean > that class, irrespective? To developers, there's traditionally no difference. I tend to be fastidious about, but there's a long history of using them interchangeably, and that don't mean TrackInfo. > > >> More to the point, why are you so apparently opposed to changing it to >> "Track Controls" (or "Track Controls Panel"), when it will obviously >> clarify the term? If it's simply the number of occurrences, a decent >> text editor can handle it in one command. >> >>> I think the "Controls" are a much more important part of TrackInfo than the >>> "Information", but the very important Track Drop-Down Menu can hardly >>> be called a "control" as a user would understand it. >> >> Of course a drop-down menu is a "control", ever since there have been >> GUI's. > > You miss the point, Vaughan. I know it's a control. That's why I said > "as a user would understand it". No, I don't miss the point. I just disagree that users should be treated as if they cannot learn user-level concepts that have been around for 30+ years. >Believe me, the only thing most users > will see as a "control" are the two sliders. That's why Steve says > "Track Controls Panel" is much clearer than "Track Controls". It's > also the main reason why I think "Track Controls Panel" will be much > more confusing than "Track Panel" - "Track Controls Panel" will > be potentially seen as the area containing the sliders instead of the > whole TrackInfo. Surely "panel" implies "containing rectangle". > > >> I read your anticipation of pain as meaning hours of work. Not a good >> reason to leave something broken > > It isn't broken for the audience of the Manual. Clearly it is because there are conflicting usages of "Track Panel". > Of course it's work to > change (three words is another word for support people to write out > every time they answer a question too!). That's a *really* weak reason to support conceptual fuzziness. >But for me the main problem > is including "Controls" in the description. As Bill says, the only problem > with "Track Panel" is that "TrackPanel" is the name of a class that > happens to mean something else, hence our problem. Disagree. Refer back to elided sections of previous messages where Peter and I agreed that "Panel" is too vague by itself, and "Track Controls" or "Track Controls Panel" are clearer because the controls are the whole reason it exists. > > My -1 (which as I said, is not a veto) is on replacing "Track Panel" with > something that is less descriptive/more confusing for the average user. > I believe "Track Controls Panel" is such, even though the best idea so > far. If the consensus is to change "Track Panel", I just hope I or > someone can dream up some other alternative. So, you've been putting effort into arguing against change rather than cooperating on improving clarity. Let's take a vote on current options: A) "Track Panel" -> "Track Controls" B) "Track Panel" -> "Track Controls Panel" C) No change. Means Mixer Board description and others will have to be hacked to be incorrect. Means "deselect all" is undocumented. Etc. I vote for B. Feel free to add another option to the vote. > > We've had loads of appreciative e-mails about how much less "geeky" > the 1.3 Manual is compared to that for 1.2. I vote for continuing that > trend. That's good, but a broad statement that doesn't necessarily apply to "Track Controls", as you said users have at least *some* understanding to what controls are. > > PS Thanks for the explanations of "Panels" and "Containers" as > understood by software engineers. > > Sure. - Vaughan |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-10-26 17:49:59
|
Gale wrote: > If the consensus is to change "Track Panel", I just hope I or someone can > dream up some other alternative. I had the possible idea of "Track Stub". I don't especially like it, though it might indicate something about its end-position. If we must change "Track Panel", perhaps we should use some other term than "Panel" to make clearer still the distinction with the TrackPanel class? The two uses of "Panel" and not exactly similar are they? Is there any word in software engineering that describes a "thing" placed in a panel, or a "thing" attached to a GUI element in a panel? Bill, are you moving to Vaughan's viewpoint, or do you feel "Track Panel" is a historical accident like TrackInfo that's best left as is, given it largely works for the intended audience? Gale |
From: Bill W. <bi...@go...> - 2010-10-26 18:56:35
|
On 26-Oct-10, at 1:49 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > Gale wrote: >> If the consensus is to change "Track Panel", I just hope I or >> someone can >> dream up some other alternative. > > I had the possible idea of "Track Stub". I don't especially like it, > though > it might indicate something about its end-position. > > If we must change "Track Panel", perhaps we should use some other term > than "Panel" to make clearer still the distinction with the > TrackPanel class? > The two uses of "Panel" and not exactly similar are they? > > Is there any word in software engineering that describes a "thing" > placed > in a panel, or a "thing" attached to a GUI element in a panel? > > Bill, are you moving to Vaughan's viewpoint, or do you feel "Track > Panel" > is a historical accident like TrackInfo that's best left as is, > given it largely > works for the intended audience? I'm fine with "Track Panel" as is. It's the "panel" at the left-hand end of the "track". I think it works for our intended audience, as very few are likely to know of the use of the word "panel" in software development, and even fewer will know of the "TrackPanel" class. FWIW, Apple's XCode Interface Builder appears to call those things (that are in a Window and can have other things in them) "Views". We've deliberately avoided the use of the words "panel" and "pane" in our descriptions for the Preferences dialog and it's various "sections". This is more difficult on the forum but I tend to write e.g. "In the Preferences dialog click on the 'Interface' section, then under 'Behaviors' ...". Most of the other uses of the word "panel" in the manual appear to be to system Control Panels (lots of references to the Windows Sound Control Panel, e.g.). Once you start adding qualifiers, such as in "Track Control(s) Panel", you run into the problem that the panel contains things other than controls, specifically the track info (stereo/mono, rate and depth) and the sync-lock state indicator. The addition of the word "Control" or "Controls" also invites confusion with OS control panels. -- Bill > > > > > Gale > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Nokia and AT&T present the 2010 Calling All Innovators-North America > contest > Create new apps & games for the Nokia N8 for consumers in U.S. and > Canada > $10 million total in prizes - $4M cash, 500 devices, nearly $6M in > marketing > Develop with Nokia Qt SDK, Web Runtime, or Java and Publish to Ovi > Store > http://p.sf.net/sfu/nokia-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-10-26 20:31:00
|
On 10/26/2010 11:56 AM, Bill Wharrie wrote: > > On 26-Oct-10, at 1:49 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > >> >> Gale wrote: <snip> >> Bill, are you moving to Vaughan's viewpoint, or do you feel "Track >> Panel" >> is a historical accident like TrackInfo that's best left as is, >> given it largely >> works for the intended audience? > > > I'm fine with "Track Panel" as is. It's the "panel" at the left-hand > end of the "track". I think it works for our intended audience, as > very few are likely to know of the use of the word "panel" in software > development, ... Yes, but it has that jargon meaning as a good analogy to general usage meaning of "a separate or distinct part of a surface" (definition 2 at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panel). But the point is that "Controls" is the relevant thing about that TrackInfo panel, and "Tracks" the relevant contained type of item in TrackPanel. >...and even fewer will know of the "TrackPanel" class. Probably zero. But irrelevant. The point I made about that is for discussions between developers and QA, where if "Track Panel" stands, it will have two different meanings and we'll have to explain which one we mean whenever we discuss them. > FWIW, Apple's XCode Interface Builder appears to call those things > (that are in a Window and can have other things in them) "Views". As in "Mixer Board is an alternative view...". :-) > > We've deliberately avoided the use of the words "panel" and "pane" in > our descriptions for the Preferences dialog and it's various > "sections". This is more difficult on the forum but I tend to write > e.g. "In the Preferences dialog click on the 'Interface' section, then > under 'Behaviors' ...". > > Most of the other uses of the word "panel" in the manual appear to be > to system Control Panels (lots of references to the Windows Sound > Control Panel, e.g.). You're arguing against "panel", so that's reason to change "Track Panel" to "Track Controls". > > Once you start adding qualifiers, such as in "Track Control(s) Panel", > you run into the problem that the panel contains things other than > controls, specifically the track info (stereo/mono, rate and depth) > and the sync-lock state indicator. But the primary things shown there, in relevancy and number, are controls (in the general usage sense -- in GUI programming they *are* all controls). Close box, drop-down menu (with 16 top-level commands), two sliders, 3 buttons, vs two static texts and one indicator icon. >The addition of the word "Control" > or "Controls" also invites confusion with OS control panels. > "Controls" does not. - Vaughan |
From: Bill W. <bi...@go...> - 2010-10-26 21:09:43
|
On 26-Oct-10, at 4:31 PM, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > On 10/26/2010 11:56 AM, Bill Wharrie wrote: >> >> On 26-Oct-10, at 1:49 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: >> >>> >>> Gale wrote: > <snip> >>> Bill, are you moving to Vaughan's viewpoint, or do you feel "Track >>> Panel" >>> is a historical accident like TrackInfo that's best left as is, >>> given it largely >>> works for the intended audience? >> >> >> I'm fine with "Track Panel" as is. It's the "panel" at the left-hand >> end of the "track". I think it works for our intended audience, as >> very few are likely to know of the use of the word "panel" in >> software >> development, ... > > Yes, but it has that jargon meaning as a good analogy to general usage > meaning of "a separate or distinct part of a surface" (definition 2 at > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panel). Yes, that's good. The Track Panel is "a separate or distinct part of" the Track. > > But the point is that "Controls" is the relevant thing about that > TrackInfo panel, and "Tracks" the relevant contained type of item in > TrackPanel. I doubt that the average user sees things that way. They don't think about what's contained in what. They may see the Track Panel as "attached" to the track. Tracks, from a user perspective, appear in the project window (and they do, it's just that, technically, Tracks are in the TrackPanel which is (eventually, there may be other "panels" in between) in the project window). > >> ...and even fewer will know of the "TrackPanel" class. > > Probably zero. But irrelevant. The point I made about that is for > discussions between developers and QA, where if "Track Panel" > stands, it > will have two different meanings and we'll have to explain which one > we > mean whenever we discuss them. Which is not a good enough reason, on its own, to change it, if it is currently working well for users. > > >> FWIW, Apple's XCode Interface Builder appears to call those things >> (that are in a Window and can have other things in them) "Views". > > As in "Mixer Board is an alternative view...". :-) > > >> >> We've deliberately avoided the use of the words "panel" and "pane" in >> our descriptions for the Preferences dialog and it's various >> "sections". This is more difficult on the forum but I tend to write >> e.g. "In the Preferences dialog click on the 'Interface' section, >> then >> under 'Behaviors' ...". >> >> Most of the other uses of the word "panel" in the manual appear to be >> to system Control Panels (lots of references to the Windows Sound >> Control Panel, e.g.). > > You're arguing against "panel", so that's reason to change "Track > Panel" > to "Track Controls". No, I'm pointing out that the only place we use "panel" to describe or name an interface element in the manual is for the "Track Panel". It is thus unique and unambiguous. > > >> >> Once you start adding qualifiers, such as in "Track Control(s) >> Panel", >> you run into the problem that the panel contains things other than >> controls, specifically the track info (stereo/mono, rate and depth) >> and the sync-lock state indicator. > > But the primary things shown there, in relevancy and number, are > controls (in the general usage sense -- in GUI programming they *are* > all controls). Close box, drop-down menu (with 16 top-level commands), > two sliders, 3 buttons, vs two static texts and one indicator icon. > > >> The addition of the word "Control" >> or "Controls" also invites confusion with OS control panels. >> > > "Controls" does not. "Track Controls Panel" just sounds awkward to me. No-one talks about a "controls panel". -- Bill |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-10-26 23:29:43
|
On 10/26/2010 2:09 PM, Bill Wharrie wrote: > > On 26-Oct-10, at 4:31 PM, Vaughan Johnson wrote: > >> On 10/26/2010 11:56 AM, Bill Wharrie wrote: >>> >>> On 26-Oct-10, at 1:49 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Gale wrote: >> <snip> >>>> Bill, are you moving to Vaughan's viewpoint, or do you feel "Track >>>> Panel" >>>> is a historical accident like TrackInfo that's best left as is, >>>> given it largely >>>> works for the intended audience? >>> >>> >>> I'm fine with "Track Panel" as is. It's the "panel" at the left-hand >>> end of the "track". I think it works for our intended audience, as >>> very few are likely to know of the use of the word "panel" in >>> software >>> development, ... >> >> Yes, but it has that jargon meaning as a good analogy to general usage >> meaning of "a separate or distinct part of a surface" (definition 2 at >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panel). > > Yes, that's good. The Track Panel is "a separate or distinct part of" > the Track. > >> >> But the point is that "Controls" is the relevant thing about that >> TrackInfo panel, and "Tracks" the relevant contained type of item in >> TrackPanel. > > I doubt that the average user sees things that way. They don't think > about what's contained in what. They may see the Track Panel as > "attached" to the track. Conflicts with first sentence at http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks. >Tracks, from a user perspective, appear in > the project window (and they do, it's just that, technically, Tracks > are in the TrackPanel which is (eventually, there may be other > "panels" in between) in the project window). Not really. Per my previous message, "Project window" is really the whole shebang: menu bar, toolbars, frame, TrackPanel. > >> >>> ...and even fewer will know of the "TrackPanel" class. >> >> Probably zero. But irrelevant. The point I made about that is for >> discussions between developers and QA, where if "Track Panel" >> stands, it >> will have two different meanings and we'll have to explain which one >> we >> mean whenever we discuss them. > > Which is not a good enough reason, on its own, to change it, if it is > currently working well for users. I think it's more important than that. But every time I've mentioned that, I've mentioned other reasons, so "on its own" is irrelevant. > >> >> >>> FWIW, Apple's XCode Interface Builder appears to call those things >>> (that are in a Window and can have other things in them) "Views". >> >> As in "Mixer Board is an alternative view...". :-) >> >> >>> >>> We've deliberately avoided the use of the words "panel" and "pane" in >>> our descriptions for the Preferences dialog and it's various >>> "sections". This is more difficult on the forum but I tend to write >>> e.g. "In the Preferences dialog click on the 'Interface' section, >>> then >>> under 'Behaviors' ...". >>> >>> Most of the other uses of the word "panel" in the manual appear to be >>> to system Control Panels (lots of references to the Windows Sound >>> Control Panel, e.g.). >> >> You're arguing against "panel", so that's reason to change "Track >> Panel" >> to "Track Controls". > > No, I'm pointing out that the only place we use "panel" to describe or > name an interface element in the manual is for the "Track Panel". It > is thus unique and unambiguous. But not mnemonic of anything but "a separate or distinct part of", when what's far more salient is that it holds the track controls. > >> >> >>> >>> Once you start adding qualifiers, such as in "Track Control(s) >>> Panel", >>> you run into the problem that the panel contains things other than >>> controls, specifically the track info (stereo/mono, rate and depth) >>> and the sync-lock state indicator. >> >> But the primary things shown there, in relevancy and number, are >> controls (in the general usage sense -- in GUI programming they *are* >> all controls). Close box, drop-down menu (with 16 top-level commands), >> two sliders, 3 buttons, vs two static texts and one indicator icon. >> >> >>> The addition of the word "Control" >>> or "Controls" also invites confusion with OS control panels. >>> >> >> "Controls" does not. > > "Track Controls Panel" just sounds awkward to me. No-one talks about a > "controls panel". > I don't find it awkward. And the fact that it's not standard nomenclature avoids the confusion with OS control panels. But guys, I'm done with this one. I've repeated myself several times on each point, only to get the same contradictions, and imo stonewalling for the sake of avoiding extra work on something you all thought was already perfect. I think these problems are serious, but really do *not* have time to continue repeating myself to no avail. Hey, Peter, thanks for listening and being willing to adjust your opinion. - Vaughan |
From: Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...> - 2010-10-27 15:41:37
|
I've just asked the least "techie" person that I could find (after indicating an audio track); "What would you call 'this thingy' at the left end of the track?" Their reply was: "Track Control Box". I like that :) (as before I'm also quite happy with "Track Control(s) Panel" and similar 3 word variations) Steve On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> wrote: > > > On 10/26/2010 2:09 PM, Bill Wharrie wrote: >> >> On 26-Oct-10, at 4:31 PM, Vaughan Johnson wrote: >> >>> On 10/26/2010 11:56 AM, Bill Wharrie wrote: >>>> >>>> On 26-Oct-10, at 1:49 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gale wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> Bill, are you moving to Vaughan's viewpoint, or do you feel "Track >>>>> Panel" >>>>> is a historical accident like TrackInfo that's best left as is, >>>>> given it largely >>>>> works for the intended audience? >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm fine with "Track Panel" as is. It's the "panel" at the left-hand >>>> end of the "track". I think it works for our intended audience, as >>>> very few are likely to know of the use of the word "panel" in >>>> software >>>> development, ... >>> >>> Yes, but it has that jargon meaning as a good analogy to general usage >>> meaning of "a separate or distinct part of a surface" (definition 2 at >>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panel). >> >> Yes, that's good. The Track Panel is "a separate or distinct part of" >> the Track. >> >>> >>> But the point is that "Controls" is the relevant thing about that >>> TrackInfo panel, and "Tracks" the relevant contained type of item in >>> TrackPanel. >> >> I doubt that the average user sees things that way. They don't think >> about what's contained in what. They may see the Track Panel as >> "attached" to the track. > > Conflicts with first sentence at > http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Audio_Tracks. > > >>Tracks, from a user perspective, appear in >> the project window (and they do, it's just that, technically, Tracks >> are in the TrackPanel which is (eventually, there may be other >> "panels" in between) in the project window). > > Not really. Per my previous message, "Project window" is really the > whole shebang: menu bar, toolbars, frame, TrackPanel. > >> >>> >>>> ...and even fewer will know of the "TrackPanel" class. >>> >>> Probably zero. But irrelevant. The point I made about that is for >>> discussions between developers and QA, where if "Track Panel" >>> stands, it >>> will have two different meanings and we'll have to explain which one >>> we >>> mean whenever we discuss them. >> >> Which is not a good enough reason, on its own, to change it, if it is >> currently working well for users. > > I think it's more important than that. But every time I've mentioned > that, I've mentioned other reasons, so "on its own" is irrelevant. > > >> >>> >>> >>>> FWIW, Apple's XCode Interface Builder appears to call those things >>>> (that are in a Window and can have other things in them) "Views". >>> >>> As in "Mixer Board is an alternative view...". :-) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> We've deliberately avoided the use of the words "panel" and "pane" in >>>> our descriptions for the Preferences dialog and it's various >>>> "sections". This is more difficult on the forum but I tend to write >>>> e.g. "In the Preferences dialog click on the 'Interface' section, >>>> then >>>> under 'Behaviors' ...". >>>> >>>> Most of the other uses of the word "panel" in the manual appear to be >>>> to system Control Panels (lots of references to the Windows Sound >>>> Control Panel, e.g.). >>> >>> You're arguing against "panel", so that's reason to change "Track >>> Panel" >>> to "Track Controls". >> >> No, I'm pointing out that the only place we use "panel" to describe or >> name an interface element in the manual is for the "Track Panel". It >> is thus unique and unambiguous. > > But not mnemonic of anything but "a separate or distinct part of", when > what's far more salient is that it holds the track controls. > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Once you start adding qualifiers, such as in "Track Control(s) >>>> Panel", >>>> you run into the problem that the panel contains things other than >>>> controls, specifically the track info (stereo/mono, rate and depth) >>>> and the sync-lock state indicator. >>> >>> But the primary things shown there, in relevancy and number, are >>> controls (in the general usage sense -- in GUI programming they *are* >>> all controls). Close box, drop-down menu (with 16 top-level commands), >>> two sliders, 3 buttons, vs two static texts and one indicator icon. >>> >>> >>>> The addition of the word "Control" >>>> or "Controls" also invites confusion with OS control panels. >>>> >>> >>> "Controls" does not. >> >> "Track Controls Panel" just sounds awkward to me. No-one talks about a >> "controls panel". >> > > I don't find it awkward. And the fact that it's not standard > nomenclature avoids the confusion with OS control panels. > > > But guys, I'm done with this one. I've repeated myself several times on > each point, only to get the same contradictions, and imo stonewalling > for the sake of avoiding extra work on something you all thought was > already perfect. I think these problems are serious, but really do *not* > have time to continue repeating myself to no avail. > > Hey, Peter, thanks for listening and being willing to adjust your opinion. > > > - Vaughan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Nokia and AT&T present the 2010 Calling All Innovators-North America contest > Create new apps & games for the Nokia N8 for consumers in U.S. and Canada > $10 million total in prizes - $4M cash, 500 devices, nearly $6M in marketing > Develop with Nokia Qt SDK, Web Runtime, or Java and Publish to Ovi Store > http://p.sf.net/sfu/nokia-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-quality mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality > |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-10-27 19:36:46
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:41:28 +0100 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was: Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Panel > I've just asked the least "techie" person that I could find (after > indicating an audio track); > "What would you call 'this thingy' at the left end of the track?" > > Their reply was: > > "Track Control Box". > > I like that :) Makes me think of railways (one of my hobbies). Can I be the signaller? D:=). I think Track <something> "could" be the answer, especially if it doesn't include "Controls" (plural). Would we ever get a consensus on it? It will likely be something that's a non-standard GUI term. Getting a sample of user answers to your question might be "interesting". I'll try a few users who AFAIK don't use the Forum but found Audacity tough going, and let you know. Gale > (as before I'm also quite happy with "Track Control(s) Panel" and > similar 3 word variations) > > Steve |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-10-27 18:37:57
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:30:12 -0700 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was: Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Panel > ... But guys, I'm done with this one. I've repeated myself several times on > each point, only to get the same contradictions, and imo stonewalling > for the sake of avoiding extra work on something you all thought was > already perfect. I think these problems are serious, but really do *not* > have time to continue repeating myself to no avail. > > Hey, Peter, thanks for listening and being willing to adjust your opinion. Of course Bill and I have been listening, Vaughan. "Extra work" to make the change is of course a consideration, as it is for changing "TrackPanel" in the code. If "extra work" to make the change was the only consideration, then on balance I would want to change if there are volunteers to do the work. The issue is that the change to "Track Controls Panel" will IMHO be retrograde for the majority of users, and will make ongoing extra difficulties for QA, not just the extra work related to the change. If someone has a practical, "concise" alternative to "Track Panel" I'd still like to change that. I'm unconvinced we really need an equivalent to "TrackPanel" in the Manual from where we are now, but I haven't yet had time to look at Vaughan's points on that. I'm not minded to change to "Track Controls Panel" while there is no consensus it's the best thing to do overall, especially while the main recent contributor to the Manual (Bill) thinks it's wrong. But if Peter/ Steve have other arguments to put, let's hear them (briefly). Gale |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-10-27 16:35:47
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:31:31 -0700 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was: Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Panel > On 10/26/2010 11:56 AM, Bill Wharrie wrote: > > > > On 26-Oct-10, at 1:49 PM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > > >> > >> Gale wrote: > <snip> > >> Bill, are you moving to Vaughan's viewpoint, or do you feel "Track > >> Panel" > >> is a historical accident like TrackInfo that's best left as is, > >> given it largely > >> works for the intended audience? > > > > > > I'm fine with "Track Panel" as is. It's the "panel" at the left-hand > > end of the "track". I think it works for our intended audience, as > > very few are likely to know of the use of the word "panel" in software > > development, ... > > Yes, but it has that jargon meaning as a good analogy to general usage > meaning of "a separate or distinct part of a surface" (definition 2 at > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panel). I think that "jargon" meaning of "Panel" is why "Track Panel" works for users in the Manual, and why using "Panel" in a phrase that means the TrackPanel Class will be confusing (to users). > >...and even fewer will know of the "TrackPanel" class. > > Probably zero. But irrelevant. The point I made about that is for > discussions between developers and QA, where if "Track Panel" stands, it > will have two different meanings and we'll have to explain which one we > mean whenever we discuss them. For me, this is the only really valid argument for changing "Track Panel", but it's tough to find any other phrase that will work. If developers only use "TrackPanel" to describe the Class, as they would expect documenters to use a space in terms like "Track Panel", this consideration should be trivial. > > Once you start adding qualifiers, such as in "Track Control(s) Panel", > > you run into the problem that the panel contains things other than > > controls, specifically the track info (stereo/mono, rate and depth) > > and the sync-lock state indicator. > > But the primary things shown there, in relevancy and number, are > controls (in the general usage sense Not in number. The only things shown there that are controls in general usage are the sliders. I really can't stress that enough. >-- in GUI programming they *are* all controls). Close box, drop-down > menu (with 16 top-level commands), two sliders, 3 buttons, vs two static > texts and one indicator icon. I'll stand corrected then in terms of one of my comments elsewhere, as I didn't think the indicator icon was a control. But it's irrelevant to the issue. And generally Vaughan, why are you going on about this when you said in one of your messages that this was above your pay grade and that Forum/Manual writers should decide :=)? Actually I think your input to the Manual is often valuable as you have a very different take on it and spot issues that may have been missed. Thanks! But I think it will be hard to get any consensus on solving this terminology mismatch problem (to the extent it is one). Gale |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2010-10-26 20:17:01
|
On 10/26/2010 10:49 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > Gale wrote: >> If the consensus is to change "Track Panel", I just hope I or someone can >> dream up some other alternative. > > I had the possible idea of "Track Stub". I don't especially like it, though > it might indicate something about its end-position. -1. It's a pejorative in general usage -- something incomplete or unfinished. It has *no* prior usage as a GUI term, so is non-standard. (It does have a computer usage as an incomplete function/method that's a placeholder for incomplete functionality.) Position is not the salient point about TrackInfo, it's that it contains controls. > > If we must change "Track Panel", perhaps we should use some other term > than "Panel" to make clearer still the distinction with the TrackPanel class? > The two uses of "Panel" and not exactly similar are they? Of "Panel" as a concept by itself, yes. But adding "Controls" makes the distinction clear. Oh, and per my vote suggestion, I think "Project Window" should be "Tracks Panel" (and means TrackPanel). > > Is there any word in software engineering that describes a "thing" placed > in a panel, or a "thing" attached to a GUI element in a panel? Heh, usually they're "controls"! But that covers display elements, whether they "control" anything else, e.g., a static text is a "control" in the GUI software terminology sense. - V > > Bill, are you moving to Vaughan's viewpoint, or do you feel "Track Panel" > is a historical accident like TrackInfo that's best left as is, given it largely > works for the intended audience? > > > > > Gale > |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2010-10-27 16:04:02
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:17:31 -0700 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was: Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Panel > On 10/26/2010 10:49 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > > > Gale wrote: > >> If the consensus is to change "Track Panel", I just hope I or someone can > >> dream up some other alternative. > > > > I had the possible idea of "Track Stub". I don't especially like it, though > > it might indicate something about its end-position. > > -1. It's a pejorative in general usage -- something incomplete or > unfinished. It has *no* prior usage as a GUI term, so is non-standard. > (It does have a computer usage as an incomplete function/method that's a > placeholder for incomplete functionality.) Position is not the salient > point about TrackInfo, it's that it contains controls. Yes, I found that computer usage too, so I'm glad you're -1. And I have no more "ideas" yet. > > If we must change "Track Panel", perhaps we should use some other term > > than "Panel" to make clearer still the distinction with the TrackPanel class? > > The two uses of "Panel" and not exactly similar are they? > > Of "Panel" as a concept by itself, yes. But adding "Controls" makes the > distinction clear. I think "Track Controls Panel" (apart from being a mouthful) possibly *is* an improvement for a small minority of knowledgable users. Against that, as Bill says, TrackPanel doesn't wholly contain controls (in the developer sense). And as most users understand "control", the only controls it has are the sliders. Calling it "Track Controls Panel" IMHO creates a day-to-day problem with user support that QA can do without. Also, I note other developers have helped with the Manual, especially on "Audacity for the Impatient": http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Quick_Guide so presumably accept the usage of "Track Panel" in the Manual? Plus, the current Manual usage of "Track Panel" is already in the old 1.2 Manual, and I'm sure a developer (Dominic?) wrote that. See "Click on an empty part of the track panel(left of the wave display with the mute and solo buttons)" on: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/manual-1.2/tutorial_common_ed_3.html As far as I can tell, Dominic started the 1.3 Manual, and it has never had any other term for TrackInfo than "Track Panel". > Oh, and per my vote suggestion, I think "Project Window" should be > "Tracks Panel" (and means TrackPanel). I think "Project Window" in the Manual usually implies the whole window, so any such change would need thinking about. Generally, I'm not sure making a user-facing Manual match with Class descriptions is all that helpful; "panel" in the sense of "TrackPanel" IMO isn't much like general usage of "panel". If the Manual is to match, we would *have* to use "TrackPanel" (no space) in the Manual to mean the TrackPanel class. Not to do so is equally confusing. > > Is there any word in software engineering that describes a "thing" placed > > in a panel, or a "thing" attached to a GUI element in a panel? > > Heh, usually they're "controls"! But that covers display elements, > whether they "control" anything else, e.g., a static text is a "control" > in the GUI software terminology sense. So the "thing" that the multiple controls are on has no description? I think that's a minefield for users to grasp. If we were Ardour, I would wholeheartedly go along with you, Vaughan. But we're not. Many of the first-time computer users who turn up in my inbox every day wanting help would find the current (excellent) Manual and even using the Forum a significant challenge. That doesn't mean we should dumb the Manual down, but its main audience has I think to be the final consideration. Gale > > > > Bill, are you moving to Vaughan's viewpoint, or do you feel "Track Panel" > > is a historical accident like TrackInfo that's best left as is, given it largely > > works for the intended audience? > > > > > > > > > > Gale |