On 03/08/2011 10:17 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > On 3/7/2011 5:53 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >> On 03/07/2011 02:56 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: >>> I ran into some unexpected behavior of the PCBNew auxiliary toolbar while >>> converting the control update handling over to wxUpdateUIEvent. When >>> selecting >>> a trace or via, the net class edit box (which is read only), clearance edit >>> box >>> (also read only), trace width choice box, and via size choice box values >>> where >>> changed to the selected object's net class value. This is a departure from >>> normal object information display which is to display all of the object >>> information in the message panel at the bottom of the screen. Since I broke >>> the old behavior, I want some input before I make any more changes. >>> >>> I propose removing the net class name and clearance read only edit boxes >> >> Intuitively, "read only edit boxes" gives a hint of an oxymoronic problem >> doesn't it? > I doubt I could have phrased it any better. > >> >> One could wish that >> >> 1) toolbars offer choices, and >> 2) a message panel shows things, including choices made. >> >> >> One is a chooser, the other an indicator. > Except for this one case, this is the behavior for the schematic, component > library, pcb, and module editors. > >> But in the real world however, there are situations where you have to give >> indication and control/manipulation, both, from the same metaphor. >> >> So I don't have a strong opinion, on this, until I get back into using the >> software again, at which point my opinion might get stronger. >> >> It is unfortunate that "ease of programming" is having such a large role in >> this decision, rather than ease of use. Ideally ease of use rules, in any >> case, and ease of programming happens because the code is designed to >> facilitate ease of use. > The "ease of programming" issue should be resolved by changing over to > wxUpdateUIEvent for control state handling. The complexity of the old set > toolbar design was a large part of the problem. The fact that I changed the > auxiliary control state behavior brought this issue into the light. > Hopefully, > the current design will make implementing ease of use features more > manageable. > >> >>> and >>> display all of the net class information when a trace or via has a net >>> class in >>> the message panel. This behavior is consistent with selecting all other >>> objects in PCBNew and prevents the current selected track and via size from >>> being changed when the user (at least this user) doesn't expect them to be >>> changed. I have already discussed this with JP and if no one else objects, >>> I >>> will make it so. >>> >>> That being said, what I really would like to see happen is to make the net >>> class control a choice box with a list of all the defined net classes so >>> that >>> drawing a net without a assigned net class will be assigned and drawn with >>> the >>> currently selected net class. That seems like something that would be >>> useful >>> instead of having to open the DRC dialog whenever I need to set the net >>> class >>> for net. I am not volunteering to do this. But it's one of those >>> improvements >>> that I think would be a time saver. >> >> It should be easy to use, is what you are saying. Do we ask the user to >> specific the netclass for each net up front? If so, then why is there any >> choice to be made this late in the game? > The only choice currently is the selecting the trace width and via size for > routing nets that do not have an assigned net class. These questions are the > same questions I asked myself when making the changes and it is why I asked > for > clarification before I make any more changes. > >> If that decision was deferred, is it really enough to give a netclass name >> drop down combobox, without also showing what it means? > If the net classes are selectable on the fly, than it makes sense to update > the > track, via, and clearance controls to reflect the currently selected net > class. > >> >> Others have pointed out that eventually the netclass editor should be moved >> into EESCHEMA, so that the layout person's job becomes more mindless. >> >> I am always arguing for features which will bring in a corporate user (the >> hobbyists are not my intended audience anymore, no offense). >> >> Yes, we all get to chose where and how we would spend our time. If >> hobbyists benefit, that is only accidental from my point of view, and I am >> serious about this. > No argument here. I am corporate user so I am going to spend my time > contributing to Kicad accordingly. > >> In the corporate world, the engineer does the schematic, and probably >> assigns the netclasses up front. So less support for late binding of >> netclasses is needed in my opinion to make this audience happy. > Thanks for input. I guess I'll have to get to work on the new schematic file > format to support assigning net class information in the schematic editor. In > the interim (assuming no one protests too loudly), I will make my proposed > changes to PCBNew until there is a better user paradigm for selecting net > classes. > > Wayne
If you have an idea on how to solve this, and nobody else offers one, then it looks like your idea is the best, isn't it? Dick _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
