On Tuesday, 15 August 2006 23:13, D. Michael McIntyre wrote: > On Tuesday 15 August 2006 1:03 pm, you wrote: > > * rearrange parameter boxes from track/segment/instrument to > > segment/instrument/ track -- let's see what people say > > It's actually segment/track/instrument here.
Same here. I don't disagree with this arrangement for the vertical stacked layout of the parameter area (it's not very relevant which parameter box is at the top in this case) but the new default is the tabbed arrangement, and in this case the users would see the segment tab in the first place, which is not a very good choice IMO. I would prefer to see the instrument tab at the top, or the track one. > I would use the non-tabbed mode if Pedro hadn't hidden my widgets from that > mode. I understand why he did so. He wrote the TPB as a place to put the > widgets that he left in place, and was probably shocked as hell that I > immediately hijacked it as a place to put my stuff. No, I was not shocked at all. I like your new segment defaults, really. The reason why I've hidden the default settings from the vertically stacked arrangement is because there is very little space for controls at a 1024x768 screen resolution (which is what I use), and something needed to be sacrificed. It was you, sorry. :-P I've also applied the patch from Martin Shepherd to allow up to 32 rotary controllers in the IPB, but are only shown in the tabbed arrangement, the classic vertical stacked arrangement shows only eight of them. It is an arbitrary decision what is more important for the TPB: the segment defaults, the playback parameters, or the recording filters. I would agree with any other decision taken by consensus, of course. > So what I'm getting at, ultimately, is that I'd like to be able to control > what shows and what hides in a KConfig-urable way, and customize my one > panel with the widgets I actually use. This is not a bad idea at all, but I think we have too much options already, and if we implement these new configuration options anyway, the discussion would move to which is the better default setting. > I'd also like to just be able to scroll the damn things. I know Pedro > hates that idea, No, I've proposed scrolling some time ago, and was Chris who strongly opposed to it. I don't like a lot the idea, though. > Yes. I DETEST the FREAKING tabs. > > (But I can live with the tabs if I have to. In which case, I say > track/instrument/segment is the way to stack them. Putting segment first > is going to be right less often in my use cases than putting track first.) I don't like the SPB in the first place, either. I would propose: Instrument / Track / Segment, or even Track / Instrument / Segment. Regards, Pedro ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
