Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Monday 26 Feb 2007 23:40, Leonard Ritter wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I've been considering making a small library of Qt4 widgets based on the
> ones in the current SVN of Sonic Visualiser -- dial (based on the
> RG/qsynth one), thumbwheel, panner, fader (based on Hydrogen).
>
Linear dials are counter-intuitive. If you see something you are suposed
to "turn" in real life, you will not try "lifting" it first. Besides,
with radial dials it's easier to control the value precisely --- you
want more precision, just move the pointer further away from the center.
Anyway I prefer faders. I don't really understand why one would need 4
(or more) diferent widgets wich do the same thing: dials, thumbwheels,
panners, faders, spinboxes, scrollbars, etc. The same happens with
non-audio widgets: lists do the same as radioboxes and dropdowns,
checkboxes could be replaced with togglebuttons, (qt) toolboxes act
just like tabbed windows.
It is inconsistent and, IMHO, it looks ugly.
Camilo.
Received on Tue Feb 27 20:15:09 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 27 2007 - 20:15:09 EET