On 6 janv. 06, at 09:05, Ulf Erikson wrote:
On 1/6/06, bulia byak wrote:
On 1/5/06, jiho <jo.irisson@...400...> wrote:
and suggest also that the scroll buttons go from 1 to 100 or 1 to 10 or something that does not mention screen pixels directly but underscores the fact that this is just a "measure" of sensitivity and that if you set it high, it will snap more.
To me, 10 is too small, but 100 is too much. Other opinions?
If 100 is too much for regular use could not 100 mean 100% snapping (enforce snapping at any zoom)? Or would it be more obvious to add a checkbox that toggles forced snapping on and off?
I meant exactly that with my 10 or 100 in fact. I saw it as a snapping sensitivity percentage, no matter what is behind 100 in term of screen pixels. maybe something non linear could be done there. I looked for a nice function from 1 to 100 but I'm not so good at maths. Maybe two functions: - x/2 from 1 to 70 (goes from 0.5 to 35 which seems reasonable and usable) - 1200*(exp((x/100)^10)-0.999) from 70 to 100 (goes from 35 to around 2000) the function looks like this in the end: http://jo.irisson.free.fr/dropbox/functions.pdf The power function can be increased to have a steeper climb and keep things more linear from 70 to say 90. I don't know if it is possible to reflect the non linearity in the interface (have a red gradient starting from 70 for example) but it will do what people expect so I guess it won't be too much of a problem.
A sensitivity max of 2000 (when most people would only use values in the range 2-20 depending on their screen resolution) sounds rather baroque. Implementing 100% snapping might be possible with such a high value, but users should not have to bother.
And this takes care of the 100% snapping without being so baroque I think.
JiHO