Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

David Bailes-3
In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a time which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)

This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?

The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and end to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by changing the "right" control first.

I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.

David.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

Stevethefiddle
On 18 July 2017 at 08:51, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a time
> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>
> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>
> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and end to
> some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by changing the
> "right" control first.

Ouch, that's not nice. It makes it look like you can no longer select
beyond the end of the project. If not fixed I think that would have to
be release noted, but hope it can be fixed. I'd guess that it slipped
in around the time of the time control reordering (sounds very "Dr
Who").

>
> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.

+1

Steve

>
> David.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

Paul Licameli
In reply to this post by David Bailes-3


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a time which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)

This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?

No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon. 
PRL


The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and end to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by changing the "right" control first.

I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.

David.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

Robert Hänggi
I hope it solves also this issue:
You can't record at an arbitrary time on a fresh inserted track.
You have to modify the end time and press the right arrow key in the
tcp in order to set the start time.

Robert

On 18/07/2017, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a time
>> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>>
>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>>
>
> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
> PRL
>
>
>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and end
>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by changing
>> the "right" control first.
>>
>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>>
>> David.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

Paul Licameli
In reply to this post by Paul Licameli


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a time which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)

This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?

No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon. 
PRL

Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.

I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.

PRL

 


The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and end to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by changing the "right" control first.

I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.

David.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

Stevethefiddle
On 18 July 2017 at 17:50, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a time
>>> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>>>
>>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>>
>>
>> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> PRL
>
>
> Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.
>
> I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.

I assume that we do want to fix this before release, so I've logged it
on bugzilla and started looking at it, but found some additional
issues:

1) Certain combinations can extend the selection into 'negative time'.
I presume that we don't want to do that, or do we?

2) We have "Start and Length" as one option, why not "End and Length"?
Would it not be more logical / useful to set the end time first and
then adjust the length rather than setting the length first (which may
well go into negative time) and then the end?

Steve

>
> PRL
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and end
>>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by changing the
>>> "right" control first.
>>>
>>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

David Bailes-3
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 18 July 2017 at 17:50, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a time
>>> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>>>
>>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>>
>>
>> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> PRL
>
>
> Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.
>
> I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.

I assume that we do want to fix this before release, so I've logged it
on bugzilla and started looking at it,

thanks. (I also had a quick look at the code last night, and it looks like there's a simple fix.)
 
but found some additional
issues:

1) Certain combinations can extend the selection into 'negative time'.
I presume that we don't want to do that, or do we?

For combinations like length and end, then if you didn't allow the start of the selection to be less than zero, then in some cases you wouldn't be able to enter length first, and then end. Not sure how much this matters. 

2) We have "Start and Length" as one option, why not "End and Length"?
Would it not be more logical / useful to set the end time first and
then adjust the length rather than setting the length first (which may
well go into negative time) and then the end?

Yes, I would have used the pairs "End and Length" and "Center and Length". This also has the advantage that when there's no time range selected, the first of the two controls always gives the position of the Cursor. (I know you can get this from the Audio position, but that's not immediately obvious.) But maybe James had his reasons for putting them in their current order?

David.

Steve

>
> PRL
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and end
>>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by changing the
>>> "right" control first.
>>>
>>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

David Bailes-3
In reply to this post by Robert Hänggi
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
I hope it solves also this issue:
You can't record at an arbitrary time on a fresh inserted track.
You have to modify the end time and press the right arrow key in the
tcp in order to set the start time.

I don't understand your description - can you give an expanded version?

David.
 

Robert

On 18/07/2017, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a time
>> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>>
>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>>
>
> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
> PRL
>
>
>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and end
>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by changing
>> the "right" control first.
>>
>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>>
>> David.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

Stevethefiddle
In reply to this post by David Bailes-3
On 19 July 2017 at 09:13, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 July 2017 at 17:50, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a
>> >>> time
>> >>> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>> >>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>> >>>
>> >>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> >> PRL
>> >
>> >
>> > Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.
>> >
>> > I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.
>>
>> I assume that we do want to fix this before release, so I've logged it
>> on bugzilla and started looking at it,
>
>
> thanks. (I also had a quick look at the code last night, and it looks like
> there's a simple fix.)
>
>>
>> but found some additional
>> issues:
>>
>> 1) Certain combinations can extend the selection into 'negative time'.
>> I presume that we don't want to do that, or do we?
>
>
> For combinations like length and end, then if you didn't allow the start of
> the selection to be less than zero, then in some cases you wouldn't be able
> to enter length first, and then end. Not sure how much this matters.

Yes, but that's not an issue if the end cursor position is set first.

If the option is "End & Length" rather than "Length & End", we set the
cursor position and then extend the selection from that cursor
position. This way there is no need to extend the selection into
"negative time". Note that this is exactly what happens with "Start &
Length" - the user sets the cursor position and then extends a certain
length from that position.

>>
>>
>> 2) We have "Start and Length" as one option, why not "End and Length"?
>> Would it not be more logical / useful to set the end time first and
>> then adjust the length rather than setting the length first (which may
>> well go into negative time) and then the end?
>
>
> Yes, I would have used the pairs "End and Length" and "Center and Length".
> This also has the advantage that when there's no time range selected, the
> first of the two controls always gives the position of the Cursor.

We are in agreement.

*** I think we need to hear from James (developer of this new feature)
and Paul (RM) as to whether this can be fixed for 2.2.0 release.

IMO what is needed is:

1) Each of the options should be in the order; set cursor position,
then extend the selection from that position.

2) Selection should not extend into negative time.

3) If one of setting is adjusted to cause the other setting to be
'invalid', then the other setting is adjusted automatically to
accommodate.

Example of (3):
With "Start & End", if "Start" is set greater than "End", then "End"
is automatically adjust to "End = Start".

If it's not fixed, then I think it must be release noted and I would
expect a substantial number of support requests about it. That would
not be good for a highly visible new feature.


> (I know
> you can get this from the Audio position,

Not necessarily.
1) With some audio in the track, press Play then Pause.
2) Click on another part of the track with the Selection tool.
The "Audio position" shows to paused audio playback position, not the
current cursor position where you clicked.
If "Length and End" is selected, then the last of the time boxes ("End
time") shows the editing cursor position.

Steve

> but that's not immediately
> obvious.) But maybe James had his reasons for putting them in their current
> order?
>
> David.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> >
>> > PRL
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and
>> >>> end
>> >>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by
>> >>> changing the
>> >>> "right" control first.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>> >>>
>> >>> David.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

David Bailes-3
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 19 July 2017 at 09:13, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 July 2017 at 17:50, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a
>> >>> time
>> >>> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>> >>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>> >>>
>> >>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> >> PRL
>> >
>> >
>> > Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.
>> >
>> > I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.
>>
>> I assume that we do want to fix this before release, so I've logged it
>> on bugzilla and started looking at it,
>
>
> thanks. (I also had a quick look at the code last night, and it looks like
> there's a simple fix.)
>
>>
>> but found some additional
>> issues:
>>
>> 1) Certain combinations can extend the selection into 'negative time'.
>> I presume that we don't want to do that, or do we?
>
>
> For combinations like length and end, then if you didn't allow the start of
> the selection to be less than zero, then in some cases you wouldn't be able
> to enter length first, and then end. Not sure how much this matters.

Yes, but that's not an issue if the end cursor position is set first.

If the option is "End & Length" rather than "Length & End", we set the
cursor position and then extend the selection from that cursor
position. This way there is no need to extend the selection into
"negative time". Note that this is exactly what happens with "Start &
Length" - the user sets the cursor position and then extends a certain
length from that position.

>>
>>
>> 2) We have "Start and Length" as one option, why not "End and Length"?
>> Would it not be more logical / useful to set the end time first and
>> then adjust the length rather than setting the length first (which may
>> well go into negative time) and then the end?
>
>
> Yes, I would have used the pairs "End and Length" and "Center and Length".
> This also has the advantage that when there's no time range selected, the
> first of the two controls always gives the position of the Cursor.

We are in agreement.

*** I think we need to hear from James (developer of this new feature)
and Paul (RM) as to whether this can be fixed for 2.2.0 release.

IMO what is needed is:

1) Each of the options should be in the order; set cursor position,
then extend the selection from that position.

2) Selection should not extend into negative time.

3) If one of setting is adjusted to cause the other setting to be
'invalid', then the other setting is adjusted automatically to
accommodate.

Example of (3):
With "Start & End", if "Start" is set greater than "End", then "End"
is automatically adjust to "End = Start".

If it's not fixed, then I think it must be release noted and I would
expect a substantial number of support requests about it. That would
not be good for a highly visible new feature.

My take on what needs doing:

1) With start and end, the previous behaviour needs to be reinstated - a simple fix, and I think it definitely needs fixing.

2) I agree that changing the order for the two new options would be preferable.

3) Not quite so bothered about negative times.

David.



> (I know
> you can get this from the Audio position,

Not necessarily.
1) With some audio in the track, press Play then Pause.
2) Click on another part of the track with the Selection tool.
The "Audio position" shows to paused audio playback position, not the
current cursor position where you clicked.
If "Length and End" is selected, then the last of the time boxes ("End
time") shows the editing cursor position.

Steve

> but that's not immediately
> obvious.) But maybe James had his reasons for putting them in their current
> order?
>
> David.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> >
>> > PRL
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and
>> >>> end
>> >>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by
>> >>> changing the
>> >>> "right" control first.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>> >>>
>> >>> David.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

Robert Hänggi
In reply to this post by David Bailes-3
On 19/07/2017, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I hope it solves also this issue:
>> You can't record at an arbitrary time on a fresh inserted track.
>> You have to modify the end time and press the right arrow key in the
>> tcp in order to set the start time.
>>
>
> I don't understand your description - can you give an expanded version?
>

Well, the issue is because of the changed behaviour of the start control.

- Create a new track
- select Start and End
- Try to change the start in the selection toolbar.

It won't work because the start time is restricted in a peculiar way.
You can expand the end without restriction.

Do the same with a generated track (e.g. 20 s).
Adjust the hour:
The control will only take the maximum of the generated sound.

The second control can be changed discretionally.

Create a new track underneath and select it alone.
The start seems now not to be restricted (change it to e.g 45 s).

Delete the second track and look how far you can go.

You have to play around with it.
The outcome doesn't seem to be the same at all times.
It feels like some limits were cached and sometimes applied to the
wrong control-set.

Robert



> David.
>
>
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On 18/07/2017, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a
>> time
>> >> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>> >> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>> >>
>> >> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>> >>
>> >
>> > No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> > PRL
>> >
>> >
>> >> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and
>> >> end
>> >> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by
>> >> changing
>> >> the "right" control first.
>> >>
>> >> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>> >>
>> >> David.
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> ------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

David Bailes-3
In reply to this post by David Bailes-3
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:38 PM, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 19 July 2017 at 09:13, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 July 2017 at 17:50, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a
>> >>> time
>> >>> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>> >>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>> >>>
>> >>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> >> PRL
>> >
>> >
>> > Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.
>> >
>> > I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.
>>
>> I assume that we do want to fix this before release, so I've logged it
>> on bugzilla and started looking at it,
>
>
> thanks. (I also had a quick look at the code last night, and it looks like
> there's a simple fix.)
>
>>
>> but found some additional
>> issues:
>>
>> 1) Certain combinations can extend the selection into 'negative time'.
>> I presume that we don't want to do that, or do we?
>
>
> For combinations like length and end, then if you didn't allow the start of
> the selection to be less than zero, then in some cases you wouldn't be able
> to enter length first, and then end. Not sure how much this matters.

Yes, but that's not an issue if the end cursor position is set first.

If the option is "End & Length" rather than "Length & End", we set the
cursor position and then extend the selection from that cursor
position. This way there is no need to extend the selection into
"negative time". Note that this is exactly what happens with "Start &
Length" - the user sets the cursor position and then extends a certain
length from that position.

>>
>>
>> 2) We have "Start and Length" as one option, why not "End and Length"?
>> Would it not be more logical / useful to set the end time first and
>> then adjust the length rather than setting the length first (which may
>> well go into negative time) and then the end?
>
>
> Yes, I would have used the pairs "End and Length" and "Center and Length".
> This also has the advantage that when there's no time range selected, the
> first of the two controls always gives the position of the Cursor.

We are in agreement.

*** I think we need to hear from James (developer of this new feature)
and Paul (RM) as to whether this can be fixed for 2.2.0 release.

IMO what is needed is:

1) Each of the options should be in the order; set cursor position,
then extend the selection from that position.

2) Selection should not extend into negative time.

3) If one of setting is adjusted to cause the other setting to be
'invalid', then the other setting is adjusted automatically to
accommodate.

Example of (3):
With "Start & End", if "Start" is set greater than "End", then "End"
is automatically adjust to "End = Start".

If it's not fixed, then I think it must be release noted and I would
expect a substantial number of support requests about it. That would
not be good for a highly visible new feature.

My take on what needs doing:

1) With start and end, the previous behaviour needs to be reinstated - a simple fix, and I think it definitely needs fixing.

Steve, do you want to submit a fix for the start and end problem? If not, let me know, and I'll submit a fix today - the sooner this is fixed and tested the better,

David.
 

2) I agree that changing the order for the two new options would be preferable.

3) Not quite so bothered about negative times.

David.



> (I know
> you can get this from the Audio position,

Not necessarily.
1) With some audio in the track, press Play then Pause.
2) Click on another part of the track with the Selection tool.
The "Audio position" shows to paused audio playback position, not the
current cursor position where you clicked.
If "Length and End" is selected, then the last of the time boxes ("End
time") shows the editing cursor position.

Steve

> but that's not immediately
> obvious.) But maybe James had his reasons for putting them in their current
> order?
>
> David.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> >
>> > PRL
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and
>> >>> end
>> >>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by
>> >>> changing the
>> >>> "right" control first.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>> >>>
>> >>> David.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

David Bailes-3
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 19 July 2017 at 09:13, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 July 2017 at 17:50, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a
>> >>> time
>> >>> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>> >>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>> >>>
>> >>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> >> PRL
>> >
>> >
>> > Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.
>> >
>> > I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.
>>
>> I assume that we do want to fix this before release, so I've logged it
>> on bugzilla and started looking at it,
>
>
> thanks. (I also had a quick look at the code last night, and it looks like
> there's a simple fix.)
>
>>
>> but found some additional
>> issues:
>>
>> 1) Certain combinations can extend the selection into 'negative time'.
>> I presume that we don't want to do that, or do we?
>
>
> For combinations like length and end, then if you didn't allow the start of
> the selection to be less than zero, then in some cases you wouldn't be able
> to enter length first, and then end. Not sure how much this matters.

Yes, but that's not an issue if the end cursor position is set first.

If the option is "End & Length" rather than "Length & End", we set the
cursor position and then extend the selection from that cursor
position. This way there is no need to extend the selection into
"negative time". Note that this is exactly what happens with "Start &
Length" - the user sets the cursor position and then extends a certain
length from that position.

>>
>>
>> 2) We have "Start and Length" as one option, why not "End and Length"?
>> Would it not be more logical / useful to set the end time first and
>> then adjust the length rather than setting the length first (which may
>> well go into negative time) and then the end?
>
>
> Yes, I would have used the pairs "End and Length" and "Center and Length".
> This also has the advantage that when there's no time range selected, the
> first of the two controls always gives the position of the Cursor.

We are in agreement.

*** I think we need to hear from James (developer of this new feature)
and Paul (RM) as to whether this can be fixed for 2.2.0 release.

IMO what is needed is:

1) Each of the options should be in the order; set cursor position,
then extend the selection from that position.

I presume this could be problematic, given that we are in a string freeze,

David.
 

2) Selection should not extend into negative time.

3) If one of setting is adjusted to cause the other setting to be
'invalid', then the other setting is adjusted automatically to
accommodate.

Example of (3):
With "Start & End", if "Start" is set greater than "End", then "End"
is automatically adjust to "End = Start".

If it's not fixed, then I think it must be release noted and I would
expect a substantial number of support requests about it. That would
not be good for a highly visible new feature.


> (I know
> you can get this from the Audio position,

Not necessarily.
1) With some audio in the track, press Play then Pause.
2) Click on another part of the track with the Selection tool.
The "Audio position" shows to paused audio playback position, not the
current cursor position where you clicked.
If "Length and End" is selected, then the last of the time boxes ("End
time") shows the editing cursor position.

Steve

> but that's not immediately
> obvious.) But maybe James had his reasons for putting them in their current
> order?
>
> David.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> >
>> > PRL
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and
>> >>> end
>> >>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by
>> >>> changing the
>> >>> "right" control first.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>> >>>
>> >>> David.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

Stevethefiddle
Cc: Release Manager

I think we should change the order as discussed in this thread before
release so that we consistently have:
"Cursor position | Duration"

If we leave this change until 2.2.1 it is another change / disruption
for users straight after the change in this release. Not only would
that look unprofessional, but it is unnecessary confusion for user,
especially for those that don't use a mouse. However, as this involves
string changes, it is at the discretion of RM.

Steve

On 20 July 2017 at 08:21, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 19 July 2017 at 09:13, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Steve the Fiddle
>> > <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 18 July 2017 at 17:50, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli
>> >> > <[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to
>> >> >>> a
>> >> >>> time
>> >> >>> which was later than selection end - selection end was
>> >> >>> automatically
>> >> >>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> >> >> PRL
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.
>> >> >
>> >> > I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.
>> >>
>> >> I assume that we do want to fix this before release, so I've logged it
>> >> on bugzilla and started looking at it,
>> >
>> >
>> > thanks. (I also had a quick look at the code last night, and it looks
>> > like
>> > there's a simple fix.)
>> >
>> >>
>> >> but found some additional
>> >> issues:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Certain combinations can extend the selection into 'negative time'.
>> >> I presume that we don't want to do that, or do we?
>> >
>> >
>> > For combinations like length and end, then if you didn't allow the start
>> > of
>> > the selection to be less than zero, then in some cases you wouldn't be
>> > able
>> > to enter length first, and then end. Not sure how much this matters.
>>
>> Yes, but that's not an issue if the end cursor position is set first.
>>
>> If the option is "End & Length" rather than "Length & End", we set the
>> cursor position and then extend the selection from that cursor
>> position. This way there is no need to extend the selection into
>> "negative time". Note that this is exactly what happens with "Start &
>> Length" - the user sets the cursor position and then extends a certain
>> length from that position.
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2) We have "Start and Length" as one option, why not "End and Length"?
>> >> Would it not be more logical / useful to set the end time first and
>> >> then adjust the length rather than setting the length first (which may
>> >> well go into negative time) and then the end?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, I would have used the pairs "End and Length" and "Center and
>> > Length".
>> > This also has the advantage that when there's no time range selected,
>> > the
>> > first of the two controls always gives the position of the Cursor.
>>
>> We are in agreement.
>>
>> *** I think we need to hear from James (developer of this new feature)
>> and Paul (RM) as to whether this can be fixed for 2.2.0 release.
>>
>> IMO what is needed is:
>>
>> 1) Each of the options should be in the order; set cursor position,
>> then extend the selection from that position.
>
>
> I presume this could be problematic, given that we are in a string freeze,
>
> David.
>
>>
>>
>> 2) Selection should not extend into negative time.
>>
>> 3) If one of setting is adjusted to cause the other setting to be
>> 'invalid', then the other setting is adjusted automatically to
>> accommodate.
>>
>> Example of (3):
>> With "Start & End", if "Start" is set greater than "End", then "End"
>> is automatically adjust to "End = Start".
>>
>> If it's not fixed, then I think it must be release noted and I would
>> expect a substantial number of support requests about it. That would
>> not be good for a highly visible new feature.
>>
>>
>> > (I know
>> > you can get this from the Audio position,
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>> 1) With some audio in the track, press Play then Pause.
>> 2) Click on another part of the track with the Selection tool.
>> The "Audio position" shows to paused audio playback position, not the
>> current cursor position where you clicked.
>> If "Length and End" is selected, then the last of the time boxes ("End
>> time") shows the editing cursor position.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> > but that's not immediately
>> > obvious.) But maybe James had his reasons for putting them in their
>> > current
>> > order?
>> >
>> > David.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Steve
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > PRL
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> end
>> >> >>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by
>> >> >>> changing the
>> >> >>> "right" control first.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> David.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

David Bailes-3
In reply to this post by Robert Hänggi
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 19/07/2017, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Robert Hänggi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I hope it solves also this issue:
>> You can't record at an arbitrary time on a fresh inserted track.
>> You have to modify the end time and press the right arrow key in the
>> tcp in order to set the start time.
>>
>
> I don't understand your description - can you give an expanded version?
>

Well, the issue is because of the changed behaviour of the start control.

- Create a new track
- select Start and End
- Try to change the start in the selection toolbar.

It won't work because the start time is restricted in a peculiar way.
You can expand the end without restriction.

Do the same with a generated track (e.g. 20 s).
Adjust the hour:
The control will only take the maximum of the generated sound.

The second control can be changed discretionally.

Create a new track underneath and select it alone.
The start seems now not to be restricted (change it to e.g 45 s).

Delete the second track and look how far you can go.

You have to play around with it.
The outcome doesn't seem to be the same at all times.
It feels like some limits were cached and sometimes applied to the
wrong control-set.

thanks for the details. I've commit a fix. Please test,

David.
 

Robert



> David.
>
>
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On 18/07/2017, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to a
>> time
>> >> which was later than selection end - selection end was automatically
>> >> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>> >>
>> >> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>> >>
>> >
>> > No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> > PRL
>> >
>> >
>> >> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start and
>> >> end
>> >> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by
>> >> changing
>> >> the "right" control first.
>> >>
>> >> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>> >>
>> >> David.
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> ------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

David Bailes-3
In reply to this post by Stevethefiddle
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
Cc: Release Manager

I think we should change the order as discussed in this thread before
release so that we consistently have:
"Cursor position | Duration"

If we leave this change until 2.2.1 it is another change / disruption
for users straight after the change in this release. Not only would
that look unprofessional, but it is unnecessary confusion for user,
especially for those that don't use a mouse.

+1.

David.
 
However, as this involves
string changes, it is at the discretion of RM.

Steve

On 20 July 2017 at 08:21, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 19 July 2017 at 09:13, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Steve the Fiddle
>> > <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 18 July 2017 at 17:50, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli
>> >> > <[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start to
>> >> >>> a
>> >> >>> time
>> >> >>> which was later than selection end - selection end was
>> >> >>> automatically
>> >> >>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> >> >> PRL
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.
>> >> >
>> >> > I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.
>> >>
>> >> I assume that we do want to fix this before release, so I've logged it
>> >> on bugzilla and started looking at it,
>> >
>> >
>> > thanks. (I also had a quick look at the code last night, and it looks
>> > like
>> > there's a simple fix.)
>> >
>> >>
>> >> but found some additional
>> >> issues:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Certain combinations can extend the selection into 'negative time'.
>> >> I presume that we don't want to do that, or do we?
>> >
>> >
>> > For combinations like length and end, then if you didn't allow the start
>> > of
>> > the selection to be less than zero, then in some cases you wouldn't be
>> > able
>> > to enter length first, and then end. Not sure how much this matters.
>>
>> Yes, but that's not an issue if the end cursor position is set first.
>>
>> If the option is "End & Length" rather than "Length & End", we set the
>> cursor position and then extend the selection from that cursor
>> position. This way there is no need to extend the selection into
>> "negative time". Note that this is exactly what happens with "Start &
>> Length" - the user sets the cursor position and then extends a certain
>> length from that position.
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2) We have "Start and Length" as one option, why not "End and Length"?
>> >> Would it not be more logical / useful to set the end time first and
>> >> then adjust the length rather than setting the length first (which may
>> >> well go into negative time) and then the end?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, I would have used the pairs "End and Length" and "Center and
>> > Length".
>> > This also has the advantage that when there's no time range selected,
>> > the
>> > first of the two controls always gives the position of the Cursor.
>>
>> We are in agreement.
>>
>> *** I think we need to hear from James (developer of this new feature)
>> and Paul (RM) as to whether this can be fixed for 2.2.0 release.
>>
>> IMO what is needed is:
>>
>> 1) Each of the options should be in the order; set cursor position,
>> then extend the selection from that position.
>
>
> I presume this could be problematic, given that we are in a string freeze,
>
> David.
>
>>
>>
>> 2) Selection should not extend into negative time.
>>
>> 3) If one of setting is adjusted to cause the other setting to be
>> 'invalid', then the other setting is adjusted automatically to
>> accommodate.
>>
>> Example of (3):
>> With "Start & End", if "Start" is set greater than "End", then "End"
>> is automatically adjust to "End = Start".
>>
>> If it's not fixed, then I think it must be release noted and I would
>> expect a substantial number of support requests about it. That would
>> not be good for a highly visible new feature.
>>
>>
>> > (I know
>> > you can get this from the Audio position,
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>> 1) With some audio in the track, press Play then Pause.
>> 2) Click on another part of the track with the Selection tool.
>> The "Audio position" shows to paused audio playback position, not the
>> current cursor position where you clicked.
>> If "Length and End" is selected, then the last of the time boxes ("End
>> time") shows the editing cursor position.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> > but that's not immediately
>> > obvious.) But maybe James had his reasons for putting them in their
>> > current
>> > order?
>> >
>> > David.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Steve
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > PRL
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> end
>> >> >>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by
>> >> >>> changing the
>> >> >>> "right" control first.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> David.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Change in behaviour of selection start and end controls

Stevethefiddle
On 21 July 2017 at 10:50, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Steve the Fiddle
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Cc: Release Manager
>>
>> I think we should change the order as discussed in this thread before
>> release so that we consistently have:
>> "Cursor position | Duration"
>>
>> If we leave this change until 2.2.1 it is another change / disruption
>> for users straight after the change in this release. Not only would
>> that look unprofessional, but it is unnecessary confusion for user,
>> especially for those that don't use a mouse.
>
>
> +1.

Well we're in agreement David, but I assume that silence from RM means
that we have to leave this 'till 2.2.1.

If anyone would like to see my proposed version, it's available here:
https://github.com/SteveDaulton/audacity/tree/SelectionToolbar

Steve

>
> David.
>
>>
>> However, as this involves
>> string changes, it is at the discretion of RM.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 20 July 2017 at 08:21, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Steve the Fiddle
>> > <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 19 July 2017 at 09:13, David Bailes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Steve the Fiddle
>> >> > <[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 18 July 2017 at 17:50, Paul Licameli <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Paul Licameli
>> >> >> > <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, David Bailes
>> >> >> >> <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> In previous versions of Audacity, you could set selection start
>> >> >> >>> to
>> >> >> >>> a
>> >> >> >>> time
>> >> >> >>> which was later than selection end - selection end was
>> >> >> >>> automatically
>> >> >> >>> adjusted. (And similarly setting selection end.)
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> This is no longer the case. Is there a reason for this change?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No.  It's just a mistake to fix soon.
>> >> >> >> PRL
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Disregard this, I wrote this reply on the wrong email thread.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I do not know if this was intended or not.  Still I suspect not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I assume that we do want to fix this before release, so I've logged
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> on bugzilla and started looking at it,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > thanks. (I also had a quick look at the code last night, and it looks
>> >> > like
>> >> > there's a simple fix.)
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> but found some additional
>> >> >> issues:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1) Certain combinations can extend the selection into 'negative
>> >> >> time'.
>> >> >> I presume that we don't want to do that, or do we?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > For combinations like length and end, then if you didn't allow the
>> >> > start
>> >> > of
>> >> > the selection to be less than zero, then in some cases you wouldn't
>> >> > be
>> >> > able
>> >> > to enter length first, and then end. Not sure how much this matters.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but that's not an issue if the end cursor position is set first.
>> >>
>> >> If the option is "End & Length" rather than "Length & End", we set the
>> >> cursor position and then extend the selection from that cursor
>> >> position. This way there is no need to extend the selection into
>> >> "negative time". Note that this is exactly what happens with "Start &
>> >> Length" - the user sets the cursor position and then extends a certain
>> >> length from that position.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2) We have "Start and Length" as one option, why not "End and
>> >> >> Length"?
>> >> >> Would it not be more logical / useful to set the end time first and
>> >> >> then adjust the length rather than setting the length first (which
>> >> >> may
>> >> >> well go into negative time) and then the end?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, I would have used the pairs "End and Length" and "Center and
>> >> > Length".
>> >> > This also has the advantage that when there's no time range selected,
>> >> > the
>> >> > first of the two controls always gives the position of the Cursor.
>> >>
>> >> We are in agreement.
>> >>
>> >> *** I think we need to hear from James (developer of this new feature)
>> >> and Paul (RM) as to whether this can be fixed for 2.2.0 release.
>> >>
>> >> IMO what is needed is:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Each of the options should be in the order; set cursor position,
>> >> then extend the selection from that position.
>> >
>> >
>> > I presume this could be problematic, given that we are in a string
>> > freeze,
>> >
>> > David.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2) Selection should not extend into negative time.
>> >>
>> >> 3) If one of setting is adjusted to cause the other setting to be
>> >> 'invalid', then the other setting is adjusted automatically to
>> >> accommodate.
>> >>
>> >> Example of (3):
>> >> With "Start & End", if "Start" is set greater than "End", then "End"
>> >> is automatically adjust to "End = Start".
>> >>
>> >> If it's not fixed, then I think it must be release noted and I would
>> >> expect a substantial number of support requests about it. That would
>> >> not be good for a highly visible new feature.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > (I know
>> >> > you can get this from the Audio position,
>> >>
>> >> Not necessarily.
>> >> 1) With some audio in the track, press Play then Pause.
>> >> 2) Click on another part of the track with the Selection tool.
>> >> The "Audio position" shows to paused audio playback position, not the
>> >> current cursor position where you clicked.
>> >> If "Length and End" is selected, then the last of the time boxes ("End
>> >> time") shows the editing cursor position.
>> >>
>> >> Steve
>> >>
>> >> > but that's not immediately
>> >> > obvious.) But maybe James had his reasons for putting them in their
>> >> > current
>> >> > order?
>> >> >
>> >> > David.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Steve
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > PRL
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> The obvious downside is that if a user wants to change the start
>> >> >> >>> and
>> >> >> >>> end
>> >> >> >>> to some new values, then in many cases they can only do this by
>> >> >> >>> changing the
>> >> >> >>> "right" control first.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I think that it would be better to revert to the old behaviour.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> David.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> > [hidden email]
>> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Audacity-quality mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audacity-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-quality mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Audacity-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-quality
Loading...