Re: [Audacity-devel] Reassigned spectrograms

[James C. <cr...@in...>]

On 18/08/2015 18:50, Steve the Fiddle wrote:
> On 18 August 2015 at 16:50, James Crook <cr...@in...> wrote:
>> 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?
They are currently per track.
Unfortunately if they were changed to be just an alternative way to 
access the global Audacity preferences we would have a regression, as 
you could not have a Pitch and a Spectrogram view at the same time.

I think the 'correct' interface would be more like styles in Word.
So we could offer in the menu.

----
1: Waveform
2: Waveform (dB)
3: Spectrogram
4: Spectrogram (refined)   <-- I think this is better wording than the 
technically correct '(reassigned)'.
5: Pitch (EAC)
----


Which are 5 configured 'viewing styles'  We have also user defined 
styles 6, 7 and 8 which will only show if the user gives them a name.

We can only configure these 8 Viewing Styles from the standard 
preferences dialog.  We can, for example, use a different window size on 
Pitch than on Spectrogram.  Paul's per track detailed configuration goes.

In Preferences Dialog, Waveform and Spectrograms no longer appear under 
Tracks, instead they appear under a new entry "Viewing Styles".  This 
has all eight entries.  Each can be configured and the last three can be 
given names.  The predefined ones grey out some controls, such as the 
ability to change the name and the algorithm.  This means the predefined 
styles will continue to be where they should be and do what they say 
they do.


I think this should give enough flexibility and be much better than what 
we currently have in audmain/master.  Implementing it introduces some 
schedule risk, so I want to check that there is (now) consensus that 
this is what we should do.


--James.