On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 03:45:18PM +0000, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Monday 26 Feb 2007 23:40, Leonard Ritter wrote: > > radial is for weirdos with the motor skills of a clockmaker. > > Correct! But where have all the radial supporters gone? There were > enough to sustain quite a flamewar about this a couple of years back.
They are tired of this discussion? ;p (No, it wasn't just me) > I prefer linear in both axes (right or up to increment, left or down to > decrement), so there may be some scope for disagreement after all. To me, the main problem is the lack of agreement on wether plain knobs should be radial, linear-vertical, linear horizontaly, linear-both. That was part of my motivation for fan-sliders: http://leute.uni-wuppertal.de/~ka0394/en/fan-sliders/index.html I still think classic knob graphics imply radial and anything else is visual lying. Quite a while ago I worked on a concept of widgets with a knob-size footprint and graphics that hint at their non radial nature. First I worked out 2 ways how they could be linear without using only one axis. The first image contains 2 charts to explain the 2 ways: - using distance the pointer has been move from the center after mouse-down - projecting the current position to the nearest axis http://thorwil.affenbande.org/index.php/2007/02/27/circulars/ There was one developer who pretty much insistet on knobs in Phat and who was at one point willing to implement my design(s), but then dropped it just because I called them not-knobs at some point (plus being busy otherwise, I guess). Nobody else was in sight, so I stopped there. > ... panner, fader (based on Hydrogen). Looked at Ardour 2 recently? I think you should have a look at the new sliders and panners. -- Thorsten Wilms
