On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:31AM -0500, Egor Sanin wrote:
>
>> If you are aware of the different behaviour, and still use the slider,
>> you want to change the current value.
>
> I may want to explore the effect of a change and return to the
> original value.
its hard for me to see how a single GUI controller can be the solution
to that particular problem (though its clearly something worth doing).
>> If you don't want to change the current value, don't touch the slider.
>
> Very easily done accidentally in a dense layout.
its not clear to me how any GUI controller that responds to mouse
motion can be immune to this issue.
>> If you want finer control of your parameters, there are different approaches.
>
> This is not necessarily about finer control, but about having 'preferred'
> parameter values (e.g. semitones for an oscillator frequency). This should
> always be possible without having to type numbers.
indeed, this is a separate issue: essentially ensuring that there is a
precise mapping of pixels to integral values of desired units (and
back), rather than (as typically happens) pixels to some fractional
value of desired units. e.g. I don't want to be able to tune to
+2.8291 semitones, only to +1, +2, +3 and so on.
and fons is right that the slide should work this way, regardless or
not of whether direct numerical input is available too.
of course, for plugins, its even more complex, because the plugin API
has to be able to specify not only the fact that it has desired units,
but also the fact that it wants only integral values of them. some
plugin APIs do provide both pieces of information.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Nov 22 20:15:02 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 22 2011 - 20:15:02 EET