|
truman
something humanoid
|
I was trying to update "snatched poster" when FF returned me this error
as you can see in the editor there are no error warnings 
or maybe there's an error that I can't see for some reason..
hep me!  |
| Posted: August 12, 2006 3:55 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
truman
something humanoid
|
ummmm... i've solved the problem replacing the highest control in the picture with a checkbox, and mapping choice 2 and 4, but I don't understand the reason of this  |
| Posted: August 12, 2006 4:01 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Mike Blackney
|
In theory, a two position slider can always map to 'on' or 'off', 'big' or 'small', etc.
Unfortunately, this restriction seems to indicate to me that if you later want to expand on the filter and add a third level, you need to replace the checkboxes with sliders and then go about reconstructing the presets. Maybe a small price to pay for intuitive controls?
|
| Posted: August 13, 2006 1:20 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator
|
This warning appears when you have an IntSlider with only two possible thumb positions. The reason for this is that IntSliders aren't very intuitive when they have only two positions -- checkboxes are a lot better for these cases.
|
| Posted: August 13, 2006 2:51 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
truman
something humanoid
|
thankyou for answering, I understand the problem. good work anyway  |
| Posted: August 13, 2006 4:12 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Mike Blackney
|
I just had an idea: a 2-state IntSlider control could appear as a checkbox automatically so that the designer can choose to use a slider rather than a checkbox if they're planning to expand on the control functionality.
That way once you've expanded the control range, the controls would *look* different to users (now a slider rather than a checkbox), but the designer wouldn't have to go through all the presets and set the value for this slider again. Plus, the submission process would be a little friendlier because the software would be taking care of the parts that should be automated.
|
| Posted: August 13, 2006 6:31 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator
|
Mike, I think that at some point we'll remove this warning (and maybe others) from the list of mandatory requirements for submission. This won't happen until we have a working system of community-based approval and a quality selection mechanism.
|
| Posted: August 13, 2006 11:04 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Mike Blackney
|
Ah, so that the community will enforce the rules that the software is enforcing ATM. I geddit - no point in coding extra functionality in if it's going to be ripped out in the forseeable future.  |
| Posted: August 13, 2006 11:51 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
