On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Pascal Huerst <pascal.hue...@bluewin.ch>wrote:
> Hi Garth!
>
> I'm not sure if this really solves the problem. I mean if we start
> "stretching" the current layouts, things might look very bad (even in 1:1).
> So I would not do that, even if its easy to realize as a starting point.
>
> As already mentioned, I'd rather use the old skins for the look of the
> knobs and so on, and make something new for the arrangement.
> What do others think about that?
>
Not sure I'm clear on your plan... if you were to implement reflowing of
controls, then you could have something reflow from the right hand side to
the next row down on the left hand side... Not a problem for text, but
when a right deck control ends up on the left side one row down, me thinks
that wouldn't work.
Maybe there would be some kind of resizing constraints? if these are
overly complicated users might end up asking why this skin doesn't resize
one way, where on another skin with a different arrangement of controls the
skin does resize.
There is also the question of how people design skins to keep a certain
layout ascetic.
If there's to be no stretching of controls, they are still going to look
overly big and cramped on small screens (see outlineMini compressed to fit
an 800x480 eeepc 701 screen [or maybe a future media tablet], where the is
no space to add loop in/out & hot cues) and overly small on larger displays
(32x32 knob is really small on a 30" display running at 2560x1600).
I'm not saying your approach won't work, just not clear on how it
would address these challenges?
Cheers,
-G
> Pascal
>
>
>
> Am 22.01.2010 um 22:19 schrieb Garth Dahlstrom:
>
> Hi Pascal,
>
> I expect Sjors will offer an obvious API call that can solve the whole
> problem in a minute, but here would be my non-WebKit approach to starting
> to tackle the problem... :P
>
> To transitioning existing skins, I think it easiest to avoid fluid layouts,
> since these would be very hard to do while maintaining what the original
> skin author intended in terms of aspect (there would also be problems with
> what to do for the scene background too).
>
> Instead, as an initial step in the evolution, I would offer restricting
> resizing to a 1:1 aspect ratio changes and do sizing / positioning widgets
> based on where they are located at percentage wise in the original skin
> size...
>
> i.e.
> When a widget is created calculate these values:
> widget.start_x% = widget.x / form.width
> widget.start_y% = widget.y / form.height
> widget.width% = widget.width / form.width
> widget.height% = widget.height / form.height
>
> // If QSS supports percentages for x,y,width, height, one could generate a
> QSS stylesheet from the values
> // Otherwise, set-up widget like this:
> move(
> start_x% * form.width, // convert to int
> start_y% * form.height // convert to int
> );
> resize(
> widget.width% * form.width, // convert to int
> widget.height% * form.height // convert to int
> );
>
> // ^- This is overly simplifying the other stuff around form aspect resize
> restrictions and triggering resizing of everything...
>
> The obvious limitations of this approach are:
> * Artwork is not vector based (.SVG), so as stretching occurs controls
> might start to look crappy
> * truncating/rounding of positions and sizing might result in some slight
> imprecision in placement (probably worse the smaller things get)
>
> Drag and drop reorganizing of widgets would be cool for editing skins (i.e.
> an "edit" mode), but I would want stuff locked down (accept for the ability
> to open overlays) while playing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -G
> __
> --- == __/ t.O ==--
> http://stacktrace.org/
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Pascal Huerst
> <pascal.hue...@bluewin.ch>wrote:
>
>> Hi RJ,
>>
>> You are right we should keep that possibilities everything should be as
>> flexible as now.
>>
>> What I'M thinking about is, that if the UI is resizable, the "things" on
>> the mainwindow have to align. Thats what we mean by "resolution
>> independent", right? But i don't know how to define these things. Is it
>> really a skin designer? Maybe we should distinguish between "Interface" and
>> "Skin". I think a skin should define how things look like and an Interface
>> how they behave on resizing or so. ? Maybe there should be a mode, where you
>> can build a Deck, like setup a Mixer as you like and a player as you like
>> and then apply a skin to it ?!
>>
>> Thanks for the answer. Maybe I will be confusing, till I get a clear image
>> about the solution ;-)
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 22.01.2010 um 18:42 schrieb Russell Ryan:
>>
>> > Hey Pascal,
>> >
>> > First off, thanks a lot for joining this discussion. It's really
>> beneficial to get as many people as possible in on this discussion so that
>> we can really understand all the perspectives and use cases involved.
>> Whatever we decide on for a new skinning system will hopefully last Mixxx
>> for a long time -- so we need to talk about it a lot to make sure we cover
>> all the bases.
>> >
>> > I read your post to the Mixxx forums and this email and I have one
>> question. If you group all the widgets into a grouping that is identified as
>> a Mixer or a Player, then what happens when someone comes along and wants to
>> make a skin where the EQ section of the mixer is separate from the
>> crossfader section?
>> >
>> > In all the current Mixxx skins, none of them have a clear boundary
>> between the widgets that you could draw a box around and say 'Here is the
>> Mixer'. The parallel waveform display concept, for example, is something
>> that we believe is a major aid to DJ'ing. The waveform displays are front
>> and center in the outline skins, while the rest of the player widgets are on
>> the left or right. In terms of commercially available software, Virtual DJ
>> and Torq agree with us in this respect, while Traktor does not. In my
>> opinion, a skinning system shouldn't constrain the organization of widgets
>> on the screen -- rather it should facilitate it.
>> >
>> > I'm for a more general approach that doesn't involve grouping widgets at
>> all along functional boundaries. Why not allow the skin to specify groupings
>> which have layouts, but are not necessarily tied to the grouping's
>> functional purpose? That seems a lot more flexible to me.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > RJ
>> >
>> > pascal.hue...@bluewin.ch wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> i need some feedback on that topic. I thought a lot and reviewed the
>> code. And I was thinking about how to make a "soft" transition to a new
>> interface.
>> >>
>> >> To change the skinning engine, i think there has to be some
>> modifications to the interface itself. Now all the widgets are placed by
>> absolute coordinates and like that its not possible to get a fluid layout.
>> So I'd like to keep the current xml files, but change the positioning in the
>> wwidget.cpp:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> void WWidget::setup(QDomNode node)
>> >>
>> >> {
>> >>
>> >> // Set position
>> >>
>> >> QString pos = selectNodeQString(node, "Pos");
>> >>
>> >> int x = pos.left(pos.indexOf(",")).toInt();
>> >>
>> >> int y = pos.mid(pos.indexOf(",")+1).toInt();
>> >>
>> >> //move(x,y); <- remove that to realize a fluid layout
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> // Get tooltip
>> >>
>> >> m_Tooltip = selectNodeQString(node, "Tooltip");
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> .....
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Then I think I will write a container class (a QWidget with layout
>> abilities), which holds some widgets and allows to arrange them by drag and
>> drop. But then I will have to store the positioning somewhere. WHERE???
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The container class will align on the mainwindow.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Second thing: Somehow i have to know, which controls i have to put
>> together into a container class. This means: I'll have to put all the Mixer
>> controls into one container class and all the Player controls into one and
>> so forth... Any ideas how i can find out which control elements belong
>> together?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'll try to catch some of you on irc later....
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> Pascal
>> >>
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts
>> the
>> >> world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for
>> Conference
>> >> attendees to learn about information security's most important issues
>> through
>> >> interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established
>> companies.
>> >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Mixxx-devel mailing list
>> >> Mixxx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mixxx-devel
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
>> world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for
>> Conference
>> attendees to learn about information security's most important issues
>> through
>> interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established
>> companies.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mixxx-devel mailing list
>> Mixxx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mixxx-devel
>>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference
attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through
interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Mixxx-devel mailing list
Mixxx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mixxx-devel
