AlfredoCubitos / qosmic

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/qosmic
0 stars 1 forks source link

Quick remove triangle variation #20

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I really enjoy the global look and feel of Qosmic, but I realised I missed one 
little thing while playing around with it : I miss the ability to quickly set a 
variation to zero. 
I always use the click and move mouse up/down to change variation's values, 
love it; but it's quite annoying having to leave mouse to set it to 0 with 
keyboard to disable it.

What about adding a little red clickable cross to quickly delete a variation ? 

I like the way it's done in Apophysis : the "hide unused variations" is really 
a good point. And the double click on the variation name to set it to zero is 
great.

For me, it's the only point that I prefer in Apophysis than in Qosmic.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by brunet...@gmail.com on 14 Mar 2013 at 4:02

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Thank you for the kind words and suggestions.

I like the idea of adding a clickable cross to quickly zero a variation.  This 
is more obvious than the current control.  With version 1.5.0 you are able to 
zero or quickly remove a variation from the table by clicking the variation 
name with the middle mouse button.  Unfortunately, this is of no use if you 
don't have a middle mouse button, so I agree that using a double-click would 
also be an improvement.

Original comment by bit...@gmail.com on 16 Mar 2013 at 4:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Thanks for your answer.
Finaley, after a while of thinking, I think that the cross idea is not a good 
solution. I mean, I think that the main problem of the variations editor is 
that we've to click to see the variations list, than in this really little view 
whe've to scroll to find a variation name, than click on it. 
It would be really simpler if Qosmic adpots the same idea than Apophysis : a 
plate list of usable variations, each value draggable to quick set it (this is 
the case actualy), and a double click action to set it to zero. The cross is no 
more needed here since clicking to the cross wouldn't remove the element from 
the list, but only set it to zero.
The more important thing - the really good idea of Apophysis - add a checkbox 
to filter on the actives variations (the non zero ones)

What do you think of that ?

Original comment by brunet...@gmail.com on 19 Mar 2013 at 2:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
The variations editing widget was updated in the most recent release (1.5.0).  
What you've described sounds similar to how the widget functioned with the 
1.4.8 and previous releases.  There's a picture of the 1.4.8 version of the 
widget in the images directory 
http://qosmic.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/images/qosmic-screen1.4.8_1.jpg

I changed this widget because I wanted to easily preview how each of the 
available variations might change the image.  The idea was that, instead of 
individually setting each variation's value to a non-zero value and then 
clearing it, it would be more convenient if I could just set a value (eg. 1.0) 
and then scroll through a list of available variations while previewing how the 
new variation altered the image.  There is a problem with this approach since a 
given value has a different meaning for each variation, but it can give you 
some idea about how a new variation might alter the image, and then you can 
adjust the value once you've found a suitable variation.

The current version of the widget displays in the table only variations that 
have a non-zero value.  We could add a toggle control to indicate that all zero 
valued variations should be displayed as well.  Do you think this would give 
you the functionality you've described?  I haven't looked at the Apophysis UI 
for quite a while, so I'm not sure if this would be the same as what is 
provided there.

Adding a double click control to clear a variation's value instead of adding a 
clickable cross sounds like a good idea too, and it should be easier to 
implement.

Original comment by bit...@gmail.com on 23 Mar 2013 at 6:39