On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 19:34 +0100, Folderol wrote: > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:23:17 -0500 (CDT) > "Gabriel M. Beddingfield" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Gordon JC Pearce wrote: > > > > > This is going to stir up a bit of discussion! > > > > > > Rotary knob GUI elements - should you move the mouse in a circle to > > > operate them, or up and down? What about side to side? > > > > My opinion... > > > > circle: no. > > up and down: yes. > > scroll wheel: yes. > > left and right: up to you. > > > > -gabriel > > Hate the things. Would much prefer a neat collection of sliders and/or > spin boxes.
Never going to happen. Numbers are the worst possible way to represent an "analogue" value. I don't care if Fc is 1752.7Hz - I care if it's "about quarter up". > In the real world you grab a knob with your fingers and have real > precise *tactile* control. This is nothing like a computer > representation, so why try to fake it? Instant visual recognition of configured values. > A compact 2000 step spin box would be rather hard (and expensive) to > implement in the real world, and how would it deal with direct entry of > numbers? It works perfectly on a GUI. I can show you a compact 2000-step spin box - http://www.rigpix.com/icom/ic2e.htm Okay, so the least-significant digit is only ever 0 or 5, and not all of the ten possibilities for the most-significant digit are valid. Have you never seen those thumbwheel switches before? They crop up on old external SCSI drives. I have one of those radios sitting on my bench right in front of me ;-) Gordon MM0YEQ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
