View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0004416 | ardour | bugs | public | 2011-10-31 18:03 | 2015-03-30 15:09 |
Reporter | acolomb | Assigned To | |||
Priority | normal | Severity | trivial | Reproducibility | always |
Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
Target Version | 3.0-beta2 | Fixed in Version | 3.0-beta2 | ||
Summary | 0004416: Confusing checkmark in route_ops_menu "Comments" item | ||||
Description | In the context menu, there is a "Comments" CheckMenuElem to toggle visibility of the comments editor window. The entry should be highlighted somehow if there are comments for this route. The missing checkmark indicating "window not shown" currently suggests "no comments" to the casual user (me). | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
I'm inclined just to remove the checkbutton, to be honest. Any thoughts? |
|
Indeed, it is not very useful without having a clear visual indication whether a track has comments (0004398). So I vote for removing the menu entry completely and directing users to the preference for enabling the "real" Comments button. I've only ever used the feature once, and always keep a separate text file per session for notes and planning, so it could probably be discussed further whether the preference should default to visible. |
|
If the menu entry were to be removed, the buttons would have to have been made visible in order for any comments to have been entered, and the user would have had to explicitly hide them again to end up in the situation of "there are comments, but you can't see where they are". So in short: yes, I agree the menu entry is redundant. |
|
let me jump here in with another idea. what if we have the menu entry, for accesing the comments window pretty much directly. then if user puts some comments into it, the comment button becomes visible for that track and we still can hide it via preferences, if we want? cheers, doc |
|
I have removed the checkbutton and left the menu item there; any more advanced arrangement can be a 3.X feature request, I think. |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2011-10-31 18:03 | acolomb | New Issue | |
2011-10-31 18:57 | cth103 | cost | => 0.00 |
2011-10-31 18:57 | cth103 | Target Version | => 3.0-beta1 |
2011-10-31 21:22 | cth103 | Note Added: 0011839 | |
2011-10-31 21:22 | cth103 | Status | new => feedback |
2011-11-01 11:35 | acolomb | Note Added: 0011852 | |
2011-11-01 12:15 | colinf | Note Added: 0011853 | |
2011-11-01 13:12 | nowhiskey | Note Added: 0011856 | |
2011-11-15 01:47 | cth103 | Status | feedback => confirmed |
2011-11-15 01:47 | cth103 | Target Version | 3.0-beta1 => 3.0-beta2 |
2011-11-15 19:49 | cth103 | Status | confirmed => resolved |
2011-11-15 19:49 | cth103 | Fixed in Version | => 3.0-beta2 |
2011-11-15 19:50 | cth103 | Note Added: 0012062 | |
2011-11-15 19:50 | cth103 | Resolution | open => fixed |