GSoC OpenSCAD project
One more: in the presence of a detailed description, the name of the
parameter might be omitted.
2016-09-02 15:33 GMT-03:00 Amarjeet Kapoor amarjeet.kapoor1@gmail.com:
On 2 September 2016 at 07:46, Ronaldo Persiano rcmpersiano@gmail.com
wrote:
I have a suggestion: if a parameter has no detail text, the space
reserved
for it should be suppressed, even when Show Details is marked. The space
in
the Customizer column is gold.
Thanks for pointing out. I thought this thing is being taken care of
in present code but its not he case.
--
Amarjeet Singh
https://amarjeetkapoor1.wordpress.com
https://github.com/amarjeetkapoor1
https://bitbucket.org/amarjeetkapoor
"The journey of a thousand commit begins with a single init"
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
I love your customizer! I found it is great tool to build a demo of a
library.
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n18324/Demo_sweep.png
This is the code of the Demo above, in case you be interested:
SweepDemo.scad http://forum.openscad.org/file/n18324/SweepDemo.scad
You will need this library to run it:
sweep2.scad http://forum.openscad.org/file/n18324/sweep2.scad
and the scad-utils libraries.
Thank you.
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/GSoC-OpenSCAD-project-tp18102p18324.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Yes I am enjoying using it also. I have made several things in it using the
remote edit approach.
I eagerly await the build where the args appear in the order defined in the
file.
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/GSoC-OpenSCAD-project-tp18102p18326.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I am not sure I have the latest but I found a small bug in the snapshot
version 2016.08.18. When the editor window is closed clicking the cross
icon, the editor hiding is not marked accordingly in the View/Hide editor
menu. So, when I want to reopen the editor window, I have to mark it and
unmark it .
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/GSoC-OpenSCAD-project-tp18102p18391.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 16 Sep 2016 7:09 p.m., "Ronaldo" rcmpersiano@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure I have the latest but I found a small bug in the snapshot
version 2016.08.18. When the editor window is closed clicking the cross
icon, the editor hiding is not marked accordingly in the View/Hide editor
menu. So, when I want to reopen the editor window, I have to mark it and
unmark it .
Above bug means you have latest snapshot and this issue is already noted
and marked for correction.
--
Amarjeet Singh
https://amarjeetkapoor1.wordpress.com
https://github.com/amarjeetkapoor1
https://bitbucket.org/amarjeetkapoor
"The journey of a thousand commit begins with a single init"
I've just started fiddling with the Customizer feature. Looking good.
Initial view is that it takes up too much screen real-estate, particularly
vertically.
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n18743/Customizer_feedback_font_size.jpg
Compared to the editor and console the variable description and name are too
big.
Given that the name is bolded it doesn't need to be bigger. (red above)
And the surrounding whitespace is too big.
The vertical spacing, blue marks, should be similar in size to the line
spacing in the editor. IMO
Is the box around each variable necessary?
Perhaps "Preset:" could be to the left of the drop-down, thus saving that
mostly blank line.
Note that the above OpenSCAD window is vertically my whole monitor size, the
small amount of Customizer information that fits is not efficient.
Yes, I know you can collapse the tabs.
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n18743/Customizer_feedback_font_size_%26_spacing.jpg
It'd be better to have a blank description take zero vertical space.
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n18743/Customizer_feedback_slider_.jpg
Clicking to the sides of the slider, ie blue area, moves the handle way too
much in one step. Perhaps it could be a percentage of the range? Like maybe
15% steps?
http://forum.openscad.org/file/n18743/Customizer_feedback_borders.jpg
The borders of the Customizer pane should align with the rest, blue/red
bits.
What was the result of the discussion re order of the tabs, order in code
v's alphabetical?
I'd +1 for order in code.
That's my first quick look.
Admin - PM me if you need anything, or if I've done something stupid...
Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; to the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. Obviously inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.
The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ time is running out!
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/GSoC-OpenSCAD-project-tp18102p18743.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Von: MichaelAtOz oz.at.michael@gmail.com
Initial view is that it takes up too much screen
real-estate, particularly vertically.
Hmm, seems like the font sizes on Windows are wrong, on
Linux the sizes are "normal" like the other UI elements.
Given that the name is bolded it doesn't need to be
bigger. (red above) And the surrounding whitespace is
too big.
Also added.
The vertical spacing, blue marks, should be similar
in size to the line spacing in the editor. IMO
Hmm, not sure about that, the line spacing in editor
can be separately configured, and matching that seems
a bit strange. It should follow the general GUI though.
Is the box around each variable necessary?
I think it's useful, but I guess we can experiment when
trying to make the whole display a bit more compact.
Perhaps "Preset:" could be to the left of the drop-down,
thus saving that mostly blank line.
That part probably will change a bit anyway. I'm not
yet sure how to best handle the presets and it would
be also useful to add some more info, basically making
the current "preset" file some kind of project file.
(maybe adding some more meta data for the model, like
author, description, license, ...).
It'd be better to have a blank description take zero
vertical space.
Already listed in the github issue.
Clicking to the sides of the slider, ie blue area,
moves the handle way too much in one step. Perhaps
it could be a percentage of the range? Like maybe
15% steps?
Yep, some percentage sounds good.
The borders of the Customizer pane should align with
the rest, blue/red bits.
Also Yep.
What was the result of the discussion re order of
the tabs, order in code v's alphabetical?
It's listed in the issue already, I think it might
make sense to support both. Most IDE's do that. I
guess depending on the use case one or the other can
be better. When writing the code yourself, the code
order probably makes more sense, for models made by
someone else with lots of parameters the alphabetical
order could be useful.
In case of huge disagreement, I'd prefer the code
order too :-).
ciao,
Torsten.
On 17 October 2016 at 14:42, Torsten Paul Torsten.Paul@gmx.de wrote:
Von: MichaelAtOz oz.at.michael@gmail.com
It'd be better to have a blank description take zero
vertical space.
Already listed in the github issue.
This is also already done.
Clicking to the sides of the slider, ie blue area,
moves the handle way too much in one step. Perhaps
it could be a percentage of the range? Like maybe
15% steps?
Yep, some percentage sounds good.
Unable to understand
The borders of the Customizer pane should align with
the rest, blue/red bits.
Also Yep.
Unable to get understand
--
Amarjeet Singh
https://amarjeetkapoor1.wordpress.com
https://github.com/amarjeetkapoor1
https://bitbucket.org/amarjeetkapoor
"The journey of a thousand commit begins with a single init"
Von: "Amarjeet Kapoor" amarjeet.kapoor1@gmail.com
It'd be better to have a blank description
take zero vertical space.
Already listed in the github issue.
This is also already done.
Ahh, nice. Can you have a look at the github issue
and click the checkboxes for things that are already
solved?
IIRC the "Consider rewriting all use of Expressions
in the customizer to simply use Value objects. That
will make it simpler to deal with literals, as all
Value objects are literals."
is also done?
Clicking to the sides of the slider, ie blue area,
moves the handle way too much in one step. Perhaps
it could be a percentage of the range? Like maybe
15% steps?
Yep, some percentage sounds good.
Unable to understand
Have a look at the slider screenshot in the original
post. If the slider is changed not by clicking the
handle and dragging it, but by single clicking in
the areas circled in blue, the slider pages to the
next value. The PageUp/PageDown keys should do the
same. I think Qt calls this pageStep.
The borders of the Customizer pane should align
with the rest, blue/red bits.
Also Yep.
Unable to get understand
See the screenshot which highlights the different
window borders (or margins?) in blue (customizer) and
red (other windows). Looks like we currently have much
bigger border configured for the customizer window.
ciao,
Torsten.
On 17 October 2016 at 16:02, Torsten Paul Torsten.Paul@gmx.de wrote:
Von: "Amarjeet Kapoor" amarjeet.kapoor1@gmail.com
It'd be better to have a blank description
take zero vertical space.
Already listed in the github issue.
This is also already done.
Ahh, nice. Can you have a look at the github issue
and click the checkboxes for things that are already
solved?
I mainly mark the issues which are done. So, mainly no new addition.
IIRC the "Consider rewriting all use of Expressions
in the customizer to simply use Value objects. That
will make it simpler to deal with literals, as all
Value objects are literals."
is also done?
No.
See the screenshot which highlights the different
window borders (or margins?) in blue (customizer) and
red (other windows). Looks like we currently have much
bigger border configured for the customizer window.
Okay, thanks.
--
Amarjeet Singh
https://amarjeetkapoor1.wordpress.com
https://github.com/amarjeetkapoor1
https://bitbucket.org/amarjeetkapoor
"The journey of a thousand commit begins with a single init"