Re: [Audacity-quality] bugs in 'Click Removal'
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2013-12-17 21:28:29
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:30:51 -0800 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] bugs in 'Click Removal' > On 12/16/2013 8:39 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: [...] > > Aren't people looking for the "thing" to apply the verb to? The rename > > to "Reduce" would push it far down the menu. > > I said this is a principle -- that means it's long been shown to be more > effective in GUI testing for many years, that people are more often > looking for an action than the object of the action. Interesting. Is there a counter argument that people could be looking for different verbs, but the thing they want to act on is always the same, so still easier to find? > >Shouldn't we avoid renaming > > effects (once released) unless functionality changes demand it? > > Not always. The wording is wrong. With Click Removal there is still the fact that it does remove the clicks it detects (as I understand it). >> * The slider in "Noise Removal" already says "Noise reduction" so > > it's clear that it's removal of the reduced noise. > That's also wrong. They should agree. We shouldn't throw multiple > terms for the same thing at the user, it's just confusing. Does the word "filter" in there mean the same as "remove"? > They choose a 'Removal' command, but then see they can only reduce? > Irritating. Are we not removing the reduced noise (that which we can instead "isolate")? What do we call the "Remove" button if we rename to "Noise Reduction" or "Reduce Noise"? > Generally, as you know, I'm against > changing GUI elements without changing function, but I think this is a > very good case for doing so, and we should do it in a sweeping manor, > i.e., verb-ize, and honest-ize (e.g. 'reduce' vs 'remove') as many as > possible before 2.0.6 release. I'm remaining -1 on renamings at this stage of the game (too embarrassing to apparently demote "Removal" effects to "Reduction" effects, and too many documentation changes needed if the entire menu changes). Upheaval for no significant gain. Anyhow, it's just my vote and please see it as a "weak" -1. > >>> I agree with Peter this is P2 -- as I think the current effect is > >>> totally useless to most users, and not good for our rep. > > > > I think Click Removal is P2/P3 borderline and Noise Removal is > > P3/P4, but Click Removal performance has been mentioned on > > lists several times without a lot of response before now. > > But there's no entry for either, right? Correct. And there is at least one specific about Noise Removal that would be a bug rather than an enhancement. > > If there is some motivation to work on them in future then I'm > > fine with bugzilla entries. > > I thought the criterion was that they're known, not that there's > motivation to fix them. It was the old instructions I had been given - don't inflate the bug count with issues there is no perceived motivation to address. > These are clearly more important, and motivating, than most P5's. The poor Click Removal has previously been commented about on lists with no developer response that I can recall, but I'm glad to hear we are motivated to improve what should be a flagship effect. Gale |