30 Apr
2005
30 Apr
'05
4:37 p.m.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 07:30:56PM +0200, Tim Orford wrote:
so, just to be clear, each tempo/meter container could
contain a complete tempo/meter map, not just a single pair
of values?
Only a meter container that is not inside another meter
container can have a tempo track, as else they couldn't
stay in sync. But a first level meter container must (and
automaticaly will) have a tempo track, because otherwise
the timing of everything inside would be undefined.
Now if that sounds complicated ... in the common case
there will be only one meter container set to 4/4 with
tempo set to a fixed value. And the app should present
a default empty arrangement / template on startup anyway,
where something like that would be included.
yep, thats cool, but i personally still wouldnt be
happy
without the "track control" area on the left. Even if you
consider it to just be a shortcut to managing properties of
the containers. Also probably some of the visual container
items would by neccesity disapear at smaller zooms anyway. I
think its worth remembering that versatile systems are often
not very successful, as even if people can be bothered to
learn them, the flexibiliy has a habit of getting in the way
of the simple case which is in 95% of cases all that is
needed. Hence for example the common usage of the inflexible
one to one channel to track relationship model. This is
a serious issue for me as i resent having to use inflexible
systems merely for interoperability with the majority of
people who quite rightly dont want to spend their whole life
learning how to get an extra 2% productivity out of their
sequencer:-)
There could be a setup like in Garageband, where you have a main
view, and a detail view below where the selection is shown. I
don't know if Garageband also does that, but if multiple objects
are selected, they should all be shown there (for easily comparing
patterns, for example).
And containers could be entered / maximized on double-click
maybe.
If you only look at the common case and what is mainstream,
there will be no progress. And I don't think sequencers are
that far developed that this should be accepted.
Of course it's important to keep the flexibility and advanced
features from getting in the way of common and simple tasks.
I think it is possible to succesfully do so inside my concept.
A user could ignore the whole multiple meter option and use
containers mainly like tracks and all would be fine. But if
somebody wants to explore 3/4 in sync with 5/8, which would
change to 7/9 later on, he could!
I like the rounded corners. I wonder whether they
would look
as good when the boxes are smaller and there are lots back
to back? I'm currently using rectangles, which has the
drawback that you cannot see when containers overlap. I was
going to try a single "cut off" corner, but perhaps will try the
rounded corners also.
With many small boxes / zoomed far out it will not work so
well, of course. But most containers will be rather big,
and having round corners will be of advantage. Too small
containers will have to be drawn with hard corners, I think.
---
Thorsten Wilms