On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 08:02:48PM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote: > > When you move the mouse slowly, you get very fine control. When you move > > it faster, the control gets coarser. So you can move a knob from 0.0 to > > 1.0 quickly with a fast mouse gesture, or you can move it from 0.5 to 0.6 > > very slowly. > > Thanks. Sounds like trouble with controlabilty/predictability to me.
It is unpredictable. I don't much care for it as a UI feature. It is very hard for me to stay below the 'fine-grain' speed limit. > > I'm still going to put my bet on linear. If you do a usability study of > > linear vs radial, I bet linear will be more obvious and easy to control. > > And you will not convince me otherwise until I see a usability test done > > with non-LAD users :) > > Maybe linear is easier to handle, but the usual knob graphics are > still misleading (you can't tell me something round with clear center > hints at linear movement, even if the real world metaphor is left out). I think that your frontal lobe is saying "knobs are round, move the mouse around them" but I still believe that your hand will find it more intuitive and correct to move the mouse in one direction - up and down. > > This is such a bad idea, unless the control is an X/Y control to start > > with. > > No, I did not mean 2 axes for one widget. Only that a linear widget has > to indicate it's direction even before interaction happens, and that it > makes sense to use vertical for volume and horizonal for pan in the > same interface. OH! Hrrm, yes, well. I see the point, but I don't think it will work. Differing semantics for similar-looking widget is the worst of all possible choices.
