I would like to change my recommendation for LogSlider. Instead of specifying
the actual values we should specify the power.
(updated) Logarithmic BXML: <LogSlider bxml:id="logslider" range="{start:0,
end: 4, base:16}" power="3"/>
That way you do not have to check to see if the values provided are valid for
the given base, and the "value" will be gained by returning the base to the
power. And of course you still have access to the power setting.
Jason Dorsey | Engineering Intern
1233 West Loop South
Houston, TX 77027 USA
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
www.attachmate.com<http://www.attachmate.com> |
www.netiq.com<http://www.netiq.com>
From: Chris Bartlett [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Suggestion for logarithmic scale for sliders
I like both the original idea and Jason's add-on.
+1
Chris
On Mar 21, 2012 4:32 PM, "Jason Dorsey"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I could see this very useful for graphical/scientific/mathematical/compSci
applications. We should be able to specify the base as well.
Normal BXML: <Slider bxml:id="normalslider" range="{start:0, end:255}"
value="0"/>
Logarithmic BXML: <LogSlider bxml:id="logslider" range="{start:0, end: 65536,
base:16}" value="4096"/>
Code:
private Slider slider = null;
private LogSlider logslider = null;
slider = (Slider)namespace.get("slider");
slider = (logSlider)namespace.get("logslider ");
Jason Dorsey | Engineering Intern
1233 West Loop South
Houston, TX 77027 USA
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
www.attachmate.com<http://www.attachmate.com> |
www.netiq.com<http://www.netiq.com>
From: Roger L. Whitcomb
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:17 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Suggestion for logarithmic scale for sliders
Just wanted to see if anyone would find it useful to be able to specify a
logarithmic scale for a slider so you could get values from 1 to 10,000,000
(for instance) without having a huge jump in value for each pixel of mouse
movement. So, the values could go: 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000 instead of 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, ...
Thoughts? Thanks.
Roger Whitcomb
