Re: [LAD] sliders/fans

> From: fons@email-addr-hidden
> To: linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
> Subject: Re: [LAD] sliders/fans
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 02:21:25PM -0500, David Robillard wrote:
> Suppose the minimum value of the widget would correspond to say
> -100 dB if not handled specially. If you just have a single fader
> per channel, you could arrange for the model or the DSP code to
> translate that to 'off'. That is no longer the case if you have
> 'VCA' faders.
>
> There are two thing you'd expect from such a system:
>
> * If either the channel or the group fader is at minimum, then
> the channel must be off (zero gain).
>
> * If the channel fader is at -50 dB, and the group at -60 dB
> you don't want zero gain, but -110 dB. Becaus either fader is
> still in a position where you'd expect that moving it makes a
> difference.

Wow. Isn't this a far bigger topic?

For example, having a user interface definition that says UpArrow
means the controller moves up is separate from saying:

a. UpArrow and gain implies dB values
b. UpArros and Frequency control implies lin/log/exp Hz values

If we want to impose semantics on the controllers that are under motion
then that is going to be one _big_ specification. Again, perhaps I need to
look at the HID definition we are referring too, I was actually anticipating
just the syntax of what the diverse key/mouse combinations cause rather
than what they effect.

There are some interfaces that expect fixed pixel steps for their controls,
the interfaces are not 'resizable'. Others are. I think it might be difficult
to impose semantic meaning of any given chance in the interface guide
for that and probably a few other reasons.

Comments?

nick
                                               

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Nov 25 00:15:07 2011