Audacity interface naming question.

[billw58]

The desire to document the TrackPanel class arises from the need for an accurate description of the Mixer Board. The Mixer Board is an alternative view of TrackPanel, even if it does not have scrollbars or wave views. But from a user perspective is seems to be an alternative view of all the Track Panels, with the addition of meters and icons. I think an acceptable description of the Mixer Board could be done without cluttering the manual with a description of the TrackPanel class. This could be done by simply avoiding describing the Mixer Board as an "alternative view" of anything.

I agree that if we decide to document the TrackPanel class it must not have the word "panel" in its name or description. "Tracks Area" is the best I can come up with at the moment.

Meanwhile, the name of the "Thing" must contain the word "Track" (singular), as there is one thing per track. It must not use the same word that is used in the description of the TrackPanel class (that is, if we document the TrackPanel class as "Tracks Area", the "Thing" cannot be called "Track <something> Area"). So in that case we're left with "Box" or "Panel". I prefer "Panel". As for the "<something>", "Control" or "Controls" seem the logical choices.

I agree with Bill a rename is unlikely to make people think the Thing is more than the sliders and possibly the Mute/Solo buttons

I'm not so concerned about people not recognizing anything other than the sliders as "controls". It can be the "Track Control Panel" because it controls the track, not because it contains controls. My point is that whatever we call it there will still be users who still don't understand what it is for. That's why I think renaming it will have little positive or negative effect on user understanding of its function.

-- Bill

[steve]

@ Steve - does your correspondent understand that the Thing has more controls than the sliders?

My correspondent immediately recognised the sliders and the solo and mute buttons as controls. They did not immediately recognise the drop-down menu as a control.
Had it not been for recent discussions I doubt that I would have called the drop-down menu a "control" - I would have called it a "drop-down menu" (and unless it's going to cause WWIII I will probably continue to do so).

I agree that if we decide to document the TrackPanel class it must not have the word "panel" in its name or description. "Tracks Area" is the best I can come up with at the moment.

I can live with that.

the name of the "Thing" must contain the word "Track" (singular), as there is one thing per track

strongly agree.

What I like about "box" is,

• To me, it implies the entire rectangular area on the left end of the track, whereas "panel" could refer to just a part of it - in particular it could refer to the area inside the "box" that contains the sliders.
• It's easier to say, easier to spell and less to type.
• It's descriptive, but doesn't sound technical (which is a + for technophobic users).

I think it's going to be tough to get away from three words and still make it clear exactly what it refers to.

It's not the "Track Controls" because it contains clickable areas that will select the track. ("Click on the Track Controls to select the track, but be careful not to click on any of the track controls" )

"Track Panel" is to my mind to vague, and easily confused with the "Tracks Area".

"Track Box" is also rather vague and to me sounds like the entire Track (in the sense that "Track" is used in the "Screenshot Tools...")

* Mixing Panel (5)
* Mixer Board (4)
* Volume Controls (4)

The top three are just wrong
but probably relate to what those users actually use - which may be limited to the two slider controls.

I'm not so sure that the entire rectangle does not look like a drop-down menu. Compare it to the device toolbar on Win7 http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.ph ... ce_Toolbar . Very similar IMO.

Agree - but the device toolbar on Win7 stands out much more boldly.
Only a rough mock-up, but how much more obvious is this?

track-buttons.png (17.07 KiB) Viewed 1410 times

[billw58]

Only a rough mock-up, but how much more obvious is this?

OMG! A modern-looking Audacity interface

Much too radical at the moment. The entire interface would have to be re-done. Simply rounding the corners of the drop-down menu, mute, solo and collapse buttons (without the shading) would help them stand out as buttons IMO. And the sliders wouldn't look so "flat" in comparison.

But this is fantasy at the moment. Given the "look" we have, how can we help people find what they need in the interface.

-- Bill

[steve]

Much too radical at the moment. The entire interface would have to be re-done.

Hmmm - yes

But this is fantasy at the moment.

Simply rounding the corners of the drop-down menu, mute, solo and collapse buttons (without the shading) would help them stand out as buttons IMO.

Yes, I think it would.
Also, on Linux, mouse over the Control Toolbar buttons and they "light up".
Could the same be done for the "Thingy" buttons?
I expect the answer is along the lines of "No, because they are not real buttons".
If they are not real buttons, could they be real buttons, or is that a WxWidgets limitation?

The developers are aware that the Audacity GUI looks like it's been knocked together on the kitchen table out of brown Lego and a crayon, but it's surprising difficult to get information about which parts of the interface it is possible to improve and what the constraints are.

[waxcylinder]

What I like about "box" is,

• To me, it implies the entire rectangular area on the left end of the track, whereas "panel" could refer to just a part of it - in particular it could refer to the area inside the "box" that contains the sliders.
• It's easier to say, easier to spell and less to type.
• It's descriptive, but doesn't sound technical (which is a + for technophobic users).

I could be very happy if we settled for Track Control Box

Only a rough mock-up, but how much more obvious is this?

Wow, I like it a lot - they actually look like buttons, they say "push me" ...

But unfortunately as Bill points out too radical for now - extremely unlikely to be attempted pre 2.0 release. ("Will we ever get to Moscow?")
WC

[billw58]

("Will we ever get to Moscow?")

As Edgar noted in another thread, today we will get half way there, tomorrow we will cover half the remaining distance ...

-- Bill

[Edgar]

One drawback with the "controls" in this "thing" which makes it more difficult for the naive user is that they do not have "tool tips" when hovered over (they do have a kind of tool tip while being manipulated). When perusing a new piece of software I commonly scroll around with the mouse to see what tool tips show up--this is my version of Reading The Fine Manual <grin>. I think this is part and parcel of these "controls" not being real controls (although the two sliders are real controls and should be able to have tool tips just as all other sliders do).

[billw58]

Fun with Photoshop:

TrackPanelWithMetersNew.png (12.76 KiB) Viewed 1362 times

-- Bill

[waxcylinder]

And after much discussion on the Audacity Quality control email lists, it is decided that henceforth we call it the

Track Control Panel

WC

[Gale Andrews]

And after much discussion on the Audacity Quality control email lists, it is decided that henceforth we call it the

Track Control Panel

WC

Here's an amusing codicil to the story, given there was no consensus on (or obvious) two-word phrase rather than three - we might have called it "Track Properties":
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/39681/th ... he-basics/

Wouldn't really have done because Properties ought really to have an interface element attached to it as per "properties sheet" or "properties tab". Fascinating though that despite our efforts to name it consistently in the Manual they still come up with their own phrase for it.




Gale