> I would argue 0-100 is more human friendly. If I remember correctly this is exactly why we went for 0-100 over consistency with the progress bar. I think keeping the 0-100 range or changing the default format of the handle's label are both acceptable, but we can't keep it showing ten (or whatever it is) decimal places.
If I had to vote on it (again) I think I'd say keep the 0-100 range and stepSize 1. That way there's no sneaky inconsistency between the value that is shown on the screen and the "value" property's value. Cheers Mathias ------------------------------------------------------------ Mathias Malmqvist UX Prototype Lead 10 Great Pulteney Street, London, W1F 9NB, UK ________________________________________ From: qt-components-bounces+mathias.malmqvist=nokia....@qt.nokia.com [qt-components-bounces+mathias.malmqvist=nokia....@qt.nokia.com] on behalf of Bache-Wiig Jens (Nokia-MS-Qt/Oslo) Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:34 PM To: Lundqvist Petrus (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) Cc: qt-components@qt.nokia.com Subject: Re: [Qt-components] maximumValues in the common API I generally agree and I will update the API to reflect this, so the slider range becomes 0-1 by default with a step size of 0 to keep it consistent with the progress bar. However, there is one minor problem with this. I would argue 0-100 is more human friendly. Especially considering how certain implementations show a formatted text label over the slider handle. Before it would be in a human readable range, but now the default slider will show a random floating point value. Ideally that should perhaps show percentage or at the very least limited to one decimal place. Right now it is just floored to an integer and the default slider label looks a bit odd. Not really a big argument against the shorter range, but it does make it look a bit odd as a default configuration. Jens wrote: > A slider with max value 1 makes perfect sense. We are in any case just > guessing what the developer will need here. It might be 0 to 10, -10 to 10, 0 > to 1, 0 to 100, 0 to 99, or anything really. 0 to 1 is the least arbitrary of > these and the step size can be 0 and thus disabled by default, which would be > a reasonable default in any case. > > Peppe > ________________________________________ > From: ext Artur Souza (MoRpHeUz) [artur.so...@openbossa.org] > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:59 > To: Saether Jan-Arve (Nokia-MS-Qt/Oslo) > Cc: Lundqvist Petrus (Nokia-MS/Helsinki); anselmo.m...@openbossa.org; > qt-components@qt.nokia.com > Subject: Re: [Qt-components] maximumValues in the common API > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:28 AM, <jan-arve.saet...@nokia.com> wrote: > > Yes, ideally they should be the same, and the range should preferrably > > be in the range [0..1]. But if we change maximumValue to 1, should > > stepSize still be 1? (This leaves two steps, so by default the > > Slider could almost be mistaken to be a switch :-) > > Hmm... I think that he was talking about just the ProgressBar. The > slider itself doesn't have much meaning with a maximumValue of 1 > because of what you said...however the progress bar seems ok with it > (and it also doesn't have a stepSize what makes things easier :) ) > > > Cheers! > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------- > Artur Duque de Souza > openBossa > INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia > ------------------------------------------------------- > Blog: http://blog.morpheuz.cc > PGP: 0xDBEEAAC3 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > ------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Qt-components mailing list > Qt-components@qt.nokia.com > http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-components _______________________________________________ Qt-components mailing list Qt-components@qt.nokia.com http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-components _______________________________________________ Qt-components mailing list Qt-components@qt.nokia.com http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-components
