Audacity Forum

steve wrote: The biggest problem that I see, is that everyone will want something different.
Some will want a 2 digit number,
etc.

As I recall, in Pro Tools LE 6, there were no options, just increasing numbers (not even an option for leading zeros). The point was that you could press enter while the project was playing and drop in a label ("marker" in Pro Tools) with a unique ID. That was still very useful.
We could offer options similar to what we offer in Equal Interval Labels.
-- Bill

billw58 wrote:As I recall, in Pro Tools LE 6, there were no options, just increasing numbers (not even an option for leading zeros). The point was that you could press enter while the project was playing and drop in a label ("marker" in Pro Tools) with a unique ID. That was still very useful.

but that is not what Simonsmithster has requested, so really you have substituted his request with your preference

Simonsmithster wrote:it would be a alphanumeric code for me, perhaps start AA,AB,AC,AD ........BA,BB,BC, etc

What Audacity already has, is the general solution, which is to create an empty label and leave it open so the user can enter whatever they prefer. Beyond that we get into specifics of what one or another person prefers, with no hope of accommodating everyone's preference without making it so complicated that no-one like it.

Yes we could provide 'some' additional options, but that returns to my original question - how far do we take it? (and who decides which options to include and which to leave out, given that whoever developed the current Ctrl+M feature has already made their decision about that).

steve wrote:

Paul L wrote: I can make the motion even simpler with an AutoHotKey script that sends keystrokes for me so I need only hit one key,

Yes, scripting your own custom action is one way to get the option that you want (and probably the only way that everyone can get the option that they want).

Scripting (at least in my experience on Windows) is imperfect because the sent keystrokes are not queued up. If Audacity takes long to process one keystroke, the next may get lost, unless you insert a delaying command in the script.

Audacity needs its own native scripting! But we know that...

steve wrote:Yes we could provide 'some' additional options, but that returns to my original question - how far do we take it? (and who decides which options to include and which to leave out, given that whoever developed the current Ctrl+M feature has already made their decision about that).

As is usual, the Audacity do-ocracy mantra surely applies at the end of the day: "Doer decides" ...

Peter

It may be possible to provide two or three basic options then an advanced option where users enter placeholders in a box for the characters and incrementation.

Gale

steve wrote:

billw58 wrote:As I recall, in Pro Tools LE 6, there were no options, just increasing numbers (not even an option for leading zeros). The point was that you could press enter while the project was playing and drop in a label ("marker" in Pro Tools) with a unique ID. That was still very useful.

but that is not what Simonsmithster has requested, so really you have substituted his request with your preference

Simonsmithster wrote:it would be a alphanumeric code for me, perhaps start AA,AB,AC,AD ........BA,BB,BC, etc

What Audacity already has, is the general solution, which is to create an empty label and leave it open so the user can enter whatever they prefer. Beyond that we get into specifics of what one or another person prefers, with no hope of accommodating everyone's preference without making it so complicated that no-one like it.

Yes we could provide 'some' additional options, but that returns to my original question - how far do we take it? (and who decides which options to include and which to leave out, given that whoever developed the current Ctrl+M feature has already made their decision about that).

Yes, Simonsmithster would like a specific scheme. He may not get exactly what he wants, but the point is to get a label into place with one keystroke. My Pro Tools example was not meant to say "this is the solution" but to point out than any option to place unique labels with one keystroke would be an improvement.

-- Bill

billw58 wrote: any option to place unique labels with one keystroke would be an improvement.

+1

and personally I'd opt for simple ascending numeric labelling

Peter

billw58 wrote:My Pro Tools example was not meant to say "this is the solution" but to point out than any option to place unique labels with one keystroke would be an improvement.

I think that it is likely to be quite east to add "an option" (singular) would be relatively easy to implement and not overly contentious. It can't be added now because we are in "feature freeze" until Audacity 2.1 is released, but of course we can still discus what we want for the after 2.1.

I'm generally in favour of the idea of single keystroke unique labels. My caution is that this simple idea could very easily explode with "and could we just..." requests for additional flexibility to the point where it becomes unmanageable, highly contentious, complicated, and probably never implemented. So with a "keep it simple" proviso, my vote is +1.

waxcylinder wrote:and personally I'd opt for simple ascending numeric labelling

I agree that ascending numeric labelling is a good choice that is likely to suit most use cases, but even that is not completely "simple".
Should it count: 0, 1, 2, 3 .... or 1, 2, 3, 4 .... or 001, 002, 003 ... or something else?

I'd favour 3 digits (up to 999, then back to 000), because: it avoids overly long labels, it maintains alphanumeric order for exported labels, I think 1000 unique labels will be sufficient for the vast majority of cases, and a "1 indexed list" is more user friendly than a "0 indexed list".

Should the numbering survive from one project to another, or reset for each project? That is, if I create a project and auto-label up to 100, close the project, and start a new project, should the auto-labels start counting from 0/1 or continue with 101, 102, 103...?

What happens if I have two projects open and add an auto-label in one, then the other then the first?

Following the KISS principle, I think that the numbering should be "per project", thus each project starts from 001 (or 1, or 0, to be decided).

steve wrote:

waxcylinder wrote:and personally I'd opt for simple ascending numeric labelling

I agree that ascending numeric labelling is a good choice that is likely to suit most use cases, but even that is not completely "simple".
Should it count: 0, 1, 2, 3 .... or 1, 2, 3, 4 .... or 001, 002, 003 ... or something else?

I'd favour 3 digits (up to 999, then back to 000), because: it avoids overly long labels, it maintains alphanumeric order for exported labels, I think 1000 unique labels will be sufficient for the vast majority of cases, and a "1 indexed list" is more user friendly than a "0 indexed list".

Should the numbering survive from one project to another, or reset for each project? That is, if I create a project and auto-label up to 100, close the project, and start a new project, should the auto-labels start counting from 0/1 or continue with 101, 102, 103...?

What happens if I have two projects open and add an auto-label in one, then the other then the first?

Following the KISS principle, I think that the numbering should be "per project", thus each project starts from 001 (or 1, or 0, to be decided).

1) as an ex-Algol programmer I'd favour counts starting from 0 - but my ex-Fortran days would favour starting more normally at 1

2) You could argue for just two digit numbering 01-99 and then reset as the Red Book CD standard specifies a maximum of 99 tracks - personally, I'd just opt for 1,2,3 and just keep going so you always get unique labels

3) And definitely "per project" numbering.

Peter

waxcylinder wrote:I'd just opt for 1,2,3 and just keep going so you always get unique labels

so 1, 2, 3, 4, ... toward infinity, but only for that project. All projects starting at "1".

What about if you add auto labels at 0, 10, 20 .... seconds (say, 32 labels)
1---------2---------3...

and then add auto labels at 5, 15, 25... seconds

Should you get:
1----33----2----34----3----35...

or
1---2----3----4----5----6...