Re: [Audacity-devel] Reassigned spectrograms

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

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...>
wrote:

> On 18 August 2015 at 16:50, James Crook <cr...@in...> wrote:
> > On 18/08/2015 15:45, Steve the Fiddle wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If there is a draft proposal, including a draft for the GUI, before a
> >> new feature is introduced, then many of these issues could be ironed
> >> out before committing to code and the documentation crew could be
> >> working on draft documentation while the feature is being developed.
> >
> > Yes, but we also have to be responsive to 'please try this branch'.
> > Otherwise there is a very strong incentive to just merge the branch into
> > master and be done.
>
> "Try this branch" is something that I like to do, time permitting, but
> becomes difficult when there are so many changes happening in the main
> repository.
>
> >
> >>
> >> A problem that you may not be aware of is that we can't document these
> >> features until you have finished experimenting with different GUI
> >> layouts. Could you give some indication of when that might be? We
> >> should try to avoid making last minute changes immediately before
> >> release if we can possibly help it.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve, we currently have
> >
> > ----
> > Waveform
> > Spectrogram
> > View Settings
> > ----
> >
> > How about instead:
> >
> > ---
> > Waveform
> > Spectrogram
> > ---
> > Waveform Preferences
> > Spectrogram Preferences
> > ---
>
> I think this hits on the main problem.
> Are these globally acting preferences, or per-track options?
>
> Do we need to have every setting available as a per-track option?
> How do per-track options interact with globally set default preferences?
>
> Making every possible setting a per-track option seems like overkill
> to me, and I think will discourage experimentation because many user
> will take one look and immediately give up.
>
>
I like making all of these settings more accessible than in the Preferences
dialog.

Steve objected to letting this dialog affect global Preferences.  Gale does
not agree with the objection.

That objection is not my reason for making them affect per-track settings,
but if this objection carries, then they can affect only those settings.

Some things, however, that I have not liked in previous versions are that
changing the vertical scale limits of one track in Spectrogram or
Spectrogram log(f) view always affects all other tracks, and that it was
not easy to change the bottom of the dB scale for waveform views (who
thinks to click Interface preferences for that?), and if you did, it
affected all tracks in that view, and also affected meters and
sound-activated recordings.  These settings at least need to be more
independent.

And I reiterate, choice of spectrogam scale and spectrogram algorithm and
enabling of spectral selection are three choices that should be decoupled.
But the existing choices in the drop down (and in Tracks preferences for
default) encoded combinations of these choices, and then only some of the
possibilities.

PRL

Steve
>
> >
> > How about if apply button was gone and instead apply was applied after
> every
> > preference change (when in this dialog)?  It is a little less efficient
> on
> > menu space, but it does (a) make clearer that we are working with
> > preferences for particular views and (b) makes it easier to experiment
> > directly with changes.
> >
> > If you don't like this, or do but don't think it does enough, please
> give a
> > counter proposal.  We want reassignment one way or another. There are
> > clearly more settings for Spectrogram than we want to show directly in
> the
> > top menu, so a counter-proposal does need to solve that.
> >
> > --James.
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
> aud...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>