On 26/04/2015 20:16, Joe Taylor wrote: > Hi Bill, Hi Joe, > >>> In general I think it's best for controls to do what they say they will >>> do and not have unexpected side effects. >> Fair comment. Perhaps it should say that it is going to do a mode switch >> as well, I'm not sure how it would do that though. >> >> The reason for the proposal was that I have never checked that box >> without also changing to JT9 mode and it seemed to me that that would >> always be the case. > Yes, probably so. But suppose I'm in JT65 mode, then check "+ 2 kHz" > which puts me into JT9 mode. Then I switch to JT4 mode, and then > uncheck the "+2 kHz" box. What mode should the program leave me in? > Yes, the program could keep track of such changes and make an educated > guess about what I want. But I might be happier to feel I was in > control of mode changes. I don't mind one extra click to select JT9 mode > after ticking "+2 kHz". I was think that switching modes would cancel the +2 kHz check box. Thinking it through more, that could boil down to the following:
Take the + 2kHz check box off the main window UI and replace it by a mode menu item "JT9 @ +2kHz". The original "JT9" item could remain for those that need it. > > -- Joe 73 Bill G4WJS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
