27 Feb
2007
27 Feb
'07
1:22 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 03:45:18PM +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Monday 26 Feb 2007 23:40, Leonard Ritter wrote:
They are tired of this discussion? ;p
(No, it wasn't just me)
radial is for weirdos with the motor skills of a
clockmaker.
Correct! But where have all the radial supporters gone? There were
enough to sustain quite a flamewar about this a couple of years back. I prefer linear in both axes (right or up to
increment, left or down to
decrement), so there may be some scope for disagreement after all.
To me, the main problem is the lack of agreement on wether
plain knobs should be radial, linear-vertical, linear horizontaly,
linear-both.
That was part of my motivation for fan-sliders:
http://leute.uni-wuppertal.de/~ka0394/en/fan-sliders/index.html
I still think classic knob graphics imply radial and anything else
is visual lying. Quite a while ago I worked on a concept of widgets
with a knob-size footprint and graphics that hint at their non radial
nature.
First I worked out 2 ways how they could be linear without using
only one axis. The first image contains 2 charts to explain
the 2 ways:
- using distance the pointer has been move from the center after
mouse-down
- projecting the current position to the nearest axis
http://thorwil.affenbande.org/index.php/2007/02/27/circulars/
There was one developer who pretty much insistet on knobs in
Phat and who was at one point willing to implement my design(s),
but then dropped it just because I called them not-knobs at
some point (plus being busy otherwise, I guess). Nobody else was
in sight, so I stopped there.
... panner, fader (based on Hydrogen).
Looked at Ardour 2 recently? I think you should have a look at
the new sliders and panners.
--
Thorsten Wilms