In the image below, the little blue squares indicate that a parameter is automated:
I don’t have a screenshot, but when you are on a different pattern with no automation the square is white to indicate that there is automation somewhere.
I propose having a new yellow (green, pink, whatever) square.
This new colour would mean “Pattern is meta-automated” or whatever the best words to describe my request are.
For example, I have a signal follower connected to a hydra, connected to a variety of sliders all over. Sometimes they don’t move. So, it’s difficult for me to remember whether or not I automated them.
PS: The little blue squares slightly different from each other. Is the reason for this documented somewhere? I think one means graphical automation, another means pattern automation, but what’s the third symbol?
I have to admit I’d never noticed the different patterns and can’t work out the third symbol. Like the idea of it clearly showing if modulated externally.
Maybe better symbols can be used instead of colors to avoid theme-clash (i made this word up, but ya know what i mean)? The symbols do look a bit Sumerian and hard to decipher. Or, maybe i misunderstand what you are getting at…
I’m not too fond of themeclashing either…it’s a problem to explain this to someone, when the color can be any color…
The mixer already has a way of representing this visually, it’s the dotted border that is drawn around devices that are controlled by a meta-device.
Here, the signal follower control the wet mix of the reverb:
So, we could simply choose to decorate the DSP device parameter like that:
Simply pull the “Meta-Automation Indicator” colour from the slider? Make the icon a small M for meta, to compliment the other three icons, for good measure.
Those little blue squares are specifically meant to show automation. Use them?
Blue is coming from somewhere, and yellow is clearly available. If these colours are different theme to theme, so be it.
Decorating the DSP params is interesting, but goes against the already available design.
i agree. even though i really like danoise’s idea (and mockup), it does not really make sense to go past the already implemented way of displaying automated sliders. also, i think Conner_Bw’s idea for the color:
So, with your approach it’s either an additional icons, or a different color. And I’d agree that using color is the best choice then. But where I don’t agree is the point of “consistency” - we already have the dotted line to represent that a meta-device is controlling a parameter - I’m simply being consistent with how the mixer displays things. Why should the Track DSPs be any different?
Also, strictly speaking, we are not dealing with automation.
But what about this following possible situation: a parameter is modulated, but in some part of this imaginary song the controlling meta-device is bypassed giving us the freedom to draw an automation curve for this parameter (or use pattern commands).
So we have to cover combinations like this:
modulation + envelopes + commands
So yeah. I’ll vote for danoise’s idea because it will solve this problem and I don’t feel like getting 4 additional icons (or colors or cows or whatever) to remember…
After thinking about it, M is not the best choice, looks like Mute.
That said, my point is not consitancy, my point is speed of implementation.
Something that exists somewhere in the code already, a trivial hook for 2.X to get a feature that just makes sense, vs changing the way a slider behaves completely, maybe 3.X and part of a bigger GUI overhaul.
EDIT: If we are talking about being consistent, the outline would go around the entire DSP, not the slider. and the mixer would show blue icons for all sliders, not just two exceptions.
Anyway. in my opinion the way meta-automation is indicated in the Mixer is not good enough. It’s cheap and barely good enough, does the job for now.
I think arguing over representation of automation should take in account bigger things, and for now we should use what we have.
Yep, we definitely need to come up with something that goes both ways: “what is controlling this device”, instead of just “what is this device controlling”?
i obviously did not think this true as much as others did.
eeter is right in pointing out the simple math that with an additional icon also come additional combinations of icons, following the current implementation. seeing as the real difference between the icons was never really clear to me before reading this thread, it seems this feature would not benefit from added complexity.
i do not agree with Conner_Bw reasoning his suggestion would be easier to implement than danoise’s. first of all, you have the added complexity as eeter pointed out. letting this part of the suggestion go, and just going for a colored block: that would be a pretty fast implementation. however, it would not be more or less fast than danoise’s suggestion, IMO. his is just a dotted line around the slider, as it already appears around the dsp effect in the mixer view. can’t be that difficult to do, can it? at least not more difficult than making a colored block for an automated slider?
@danoise: the ‘consistency’ argument was mine, not Conner_Bw’s. i deducted it from his earlier statement about stuff being already implemented, but i gather my assumption was wrong. that said, on second thought, your solution is consistent as well.
If we’re going to have it clearly display if it has a modulation device (which, as mentioned can be turned off to allow normal automation methods) do we not think there should also be a clearer way of always showing if a parameter has been set up to be controlled via MIDI?
