Re: [sc-dev] Not so EZ Consistency

[jostM <sc3@xxxxxxxx>]

It's possible of course to add it to the others, but will mean rewriting
all the bounds calculations.
If I can find time to do this before 3.3, yes.

best,

jost


Alberto de Campo wrote:
> hi jost,
>
>
>> Alberto,
>>
>> If I do make ERanger conform, I think I would need to get rid of the
>> default white background in the labels.
>
> no problem.
>
>> I am also not certain about the units label. EZslider doesn't have one,
>> and it takes aup a lot of space. Just as with ez slider, people can
>> always put the units in the first label.
>
> I would prefer to keep it as an option at least.
>
> Maybe it would make sense if EZSlider and EZNumber also had
> unit labels? about 20 specs in Spec.specs actually have units.
>
> They could be off by default (make unitWidth nil by default -> no
> unitsView),
> and could be turned on by supplying a unitWidth, like:
>
> EZRanger( ... \freq, ..., unitWidth: 20)
>
> does that make sense?
>
>
>> Would you be bothered if EZRanger just had three schemes:
>>
>> labelPosition \left (horizontal):
>>
>>     label-numberbox1-rangeSlider-numberbox2
>>
>> labelPosition \top:
>>
>>     label-numberbox1-numberbox2
>>     rangeSlider
>>
>> labelPosition \stack (vertical):
>>
>>     numberbox2
>>     rangeSlider
>>     numberbox1
>>     label
>
> yes, fine.
>
>
> best, adc

_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/