--- On Wed, 2/10/10, hard off <hard.off(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: hard off <hard.off(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PD] vertical column of msg boxes
> To: "Martin Peach" <martin.peach(a)sympatico.ca>
> Cc: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika(a)yahoo.com>, pd-list(a)iem.at
> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 3:23 PM
> that is a brilliant idea. if lines were
> always hidden behind boxes, patching would be so much
> neater.
>
Hi,
I think hiding cords behind boxes would make the patches harder to
read. In the attached cords-pdext (which is my favorite "do once" idiom)
you've only got four pixels and a judgment of the wire angle to know that
the wire stretches all the way from the outlet of [0] to the right inlet
of [spigot]. If the graphics were a little more evolved you could
make it so that the cord looks is visible in the background of the text
without obscuring it, but as it is I prefer the current clear sloppiness
to ambiguous neatness.
In the straight vertical column of msg boxes I suggested and Martin's tcpclient-help.pd (never thought of that, btw), we're both indulging in
the ambiguous neatness-- I mean if you really want to be true to telling
what a patch does just by looking at it, I think
you'd have to line up messages as in tcpclient-help-example.pd
(attached). That's the only way you can know for sure where the wires go
without moving stuff around in the patch.
But since all those messages boxes are obviously _supposed_ to go to the
same place, I think it's acceptable to make it more readable for the user
at the expense of making it harder to locate a mistake (e.g., forgetting
to connect one of the message boxes).
But if the text in boxes was moved over 2 pixels so it didn't clash with
the wires, I would prefer vertical msg box columns to the 45 degree
workaround.
-Jonathan