On Wednesday 16 Aug 2006 00:19, D. Michael McIntyre wrote: > On Tuesday 15 August 2006 5:54 pm, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: > > 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 didn't notice how this changed in the non-tabbed view. So the idea was > to get the SPB to the top. I think even in that case I would put the TPB > at the top. Then the IPB at the bottom, definitely. That just seems > right. So the SPB in the middle.
I misquoted the intended layout in the commit report -- segment/track/instrument was what I intended. Rationale (based on stacked view): 1. Instrument should be after track, because you can select the instrument from the track box and there's a natural track->instrument hierarchy. Ideally these should be next to one another, but that's not a requirement. 2. Segment should be adjacent to track, because the track box selects (some of) the default segment parameters (or it would, if that bit was visible). Segment could go after track. However, there is no track->segment hierarchy in the same way as the track->instrument hierarchy, because if you change the track parameters, the existing segment parameters don't change (and if you move a segment to another track, its parameters don't change). Hence implying this hierarchy by placing segment straight after track may be misleading rather than helpful. Also, the parameters are segment parameters that just happen to be defaulted in track -- so meeting them first in the segment parameter box rather than the track one makes sense. This doesn't necessarily mean the segment box _has_ to go before the track box, but it does mean it's not so clear that it should go after it. 3. There is an advantage to putting segment before instrument for purposes of consistency with previous versions of RG. Possible arrangements: T S I satisfies 1 weakly, 2 weakly, 3 T I S satisfies 1 strongly I T S satisfies 2 weakly I S T satisfies 2 S I T satisfies 3 S T I satisfies 1 strongly, 2, 3 so that's the winner. I didn't actually work all that out beforehand, mind you -- I just stacked them the way I thought they looked right, and I'm rationalising it now. In tabbed mode, the same constraints don't apply because there's no particular suggestion of "containment in" or "control over" a thing that is stacked immediately below another. In tabbed mode, it would make sense either to order the tabs from "grossest" to "finest" object, or in the order in which you think you'll have to use them, or some such -- there are various possibilities. Track/instrument/segment or track/segment/instrument would probably be equally good there. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
