Hi Ian, I don't see why not, although the current feedback gives me more direction than a simple vote. Also there is the issue with experienced J'ers making decisions for newcomers. At some point we will need to run the options past our 'real' audience.
Cheers, bob On -Mar10-2010, at -Mar10-20104:22 PM, Ian Clark wrote: > Is there any way the Chat list could take a vote? > > Ian > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, bob therriault <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks Brian, >> >> The landscape mode combined with the available video resolution does >> constrain the approach of these animations. >> >> One concern I have about using the item to item approach with vectors is the >> confusion it could cause between i. 3 and i.3 1 . The vertical orientation >> avoids the overlap of items that would not interact, but it does make it >> look as if we are changing the shape of the vector. I'll bang together a >> sample and see how it looks. >> >> Cheers, bob >> >> On -Mar10-2010, at -Mar10-20109:15 AM, Brian Schott wrote: >> >>> Actually, upon reflection, Skip's layouts are more practical given >>> that the animation frames are in landscape, not portrait, orientation. >>> Still, I like the idea of maintaining the concept of J items, but >>> sideways as Skip has suggested, in this context. >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
