Re: [Audacity-quality] TCP revised dropdown menu

[Paul L. <pau...@gm...>]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Gale <ga...@au...> wrote:

> Peter Sampson wrote
> > On the whole I think I'm quite liking the revised, shorter, Track
> > ControlPanel dropdown menu that Paul has provided.
> > 1) I'd *really*like to see the menu also available as a right-click
> option
> > in the TCP.
>
> I think that depends if we might ever need context-specific right-click
> over
> a control in Track Control Panel.
>
>
> Peter Sampson wrote
> > 2) I would prefer the View Settings menu to be context dependent so that
> > when you are in Waveform you *only* see the Waveform settings withoutthe
> > option to toggle to Spectrogram settings and vice versa.This would have
> > the advantage that the Waveform Settings dialog could be appropriately
> > smaller (there's a lot of empty real-estate in it right now).
>
> I think that would be confusing given historically we've allowed users
> to choose any view directly from the dropdown.
>
> I know I have no time to read these lists, but where has the Pitch view
> gone?
> Was there a discussion about removing it?
>

Gale, I have been arguing that Pitch is just a different choice algorithm
from FFT for getting spectral information from the signal.  We should think
of algorithm choice, vertical scale choice, and enabling of spectral
selection as three different "axes" for determining what is drawn in the
spectrum view.  It is wrong in my opinion to have all of that encoded as
one choice in the track drop-down menu, and to have only some of the many
combinations there.  I have reduced the drop-down menu to a binary choice
between waveform and spectrum, and you open View Settings... to make the
other choices.

So, if you want pitch view, got to View Settings... and use the Algorithm
choice.  But then you can vary the vertical scale choice, and see it
labelled in Hz, and use spectral selection, and zoom in and out in the
vertical ruler -- just as for FFT.


>
>
> Peter Sampson wrote
> > 3) I really like the fact that the user can easily select "Defaults" in
> > the viewsettings.
> > 4) If we are going to have the settings for Spectrogram view in the
> > Spectrogram'sview settings then I think we should  the Spectrograms entry
> > in Preferences.I'm guessing that Paul has done it this way so that Prefs
> > can be a globalsetting while the TCP setting is local to that track.  If
> > that is the case then I would prefer to still remove the
> > Prefs>Spectrograms - and add a local/globalswitch in the Spectrogram's
> > View Settings - as this means it can all be managed by the user in one
> > place and they don't have to flit from Prefs to viewstings.
>
> Or at least, put a button to open Spectrograms preferences in the track
> settings
> spectrograms dialogue, as I said.
>
> Users new to Audacity may not even know about Spectrograms Prefs, so as a
> result the "Defaults" label for the checkbox in the track settings dialogue
> is
> meaningless. Please can you fix that as I requested, or as Peter suggests,
> move
> the entire Spectrograms Prefs into the track settings.
>

"Moving the entire Spectrograms Prefs into the track settings" means track
settings can affect global settings, which I don't mind, but Steve is
strongly opposed to that idea.

PRL


> I am fine with retaining Spectrograms preferences if the "Defaults" button
> is labelled more appropriately. I think combining global and local into the
> track settings could be confusing but I agree Paul could make a Windows
> release (not debug) binary with Spectrograms Prefs removed so we can
> all see it. Just an "audacity.exe" would do.
>
> When we decide on what exactly is in the track settings dialogue we can
> see if we want to rename "View Settings...".
>
>
> Gale
>
>
> Peter Sampson wrote
> > 5) As you might imagine, I *love* the little switch in the Spectrogram's
> > ViewSettings for "Enable spectral selection.  I do however thing that
> > Spectral Selection should be capitalized in this dialog as it is a
> > specific Audacity entity.
> > 6) I agree with Steve that the dialog for the Spectrogram's View Settings
> > issomewhat daunting and techy - but then so is the existing
> > Prefs>Spectrogramsand indeed so are spectral views and spectral editing
> > anyway  They are notfor the faint-hearted o the un-knowledgeable.  But I
> > am happy with that as I'mpretty sure that most users will never stray
> from
> > the default Waveform viewanyway.  We almost certainly need more spectral
> > help in the Manual but thatis well beyond my experience and skill-set.
> > 7) While we are bent on making the TCP dropdown menu shorter, why don't
> > weconsider hiving off the channel management block into a separate
> > dropdownoff the main TCP dropdown with a rollover?
> > 8) I don't like the way the View Settings menu can be used to change the
> > view from Waveform to Spectrogram or vice-versa - but if my point 4 is
> > accepted andimplemented then this would no longer occur anyway.
> >
> > Once the menu has stabilized we can start work on the update to the
> > Manual.I have already placed a P1 there for that, but it will be a fair
> > bit of work and weare likely to need help with the techy Spectrogram's
> > View Settings stuff as thatgoes right over my head ...
> > Cheers,Peter.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://audacity.238276.n2.nabble.com/TCP-revised-dropdown-menu-tp7570445p7570474.html
> Sent from the audacity-quality mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> Aud...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>