7 Sep
2010
7 Sep
'10
9:43 p.m.
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 19:34 +0100, Folderol wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:23:17 -0500 (CDT)
"Gabriel M. Beddingfield" <gabrbedd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Never going to happen. Numbers are the worst possible way to represent
an "analogue" value.
I don't care if Fc is 1752.7Hz - I care if it's "about quarter up".
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
Hate the things. Would much prefer a neat collection of sliders and/or
spin boxes. This is going to stir up a bit of discussion!
Rotary knob GUI elements - should you move the mouse in a circle to
operate them, or up and down? What about side to side?
My opinion...
circle: no.
up and down: yes.
scroll wheel: yes.
left and right: up to you.
-gabriel In the real world you grab a knob with your fingers
and have real
precise *tactile* control. This is nothing like a computer
representation, so why try to fake it?
Instant visual recognition of configured values.
A compact 2000 step spin box would be rather hard (and
expensive) to
implement in the real world, and how would it deal with direct entry of
numbers? It works perfectly on a GUI.
I can show you a compact 2000-step spin box -
http://www.rigpix.com/icom/ic2e.htm
Okay, so the least-significant digit is only ever 0 or 5, and not all of
the ten possibilities for the most-significant digit are valid. Have
you never seen those thumbwheel switches before? They crop up on old
external SCSI drives. I have one of those radios sitting on my bench
right in front of me ;-)
Gordon MM0YEQ