[visurfacereader] Re: Poll on flexibility versus ease

  • From: "Jim Noseworthy" <jim.noseworthy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <visurfacereader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 06:48:50 -0300

Hey Tim:


Would it be possible to include a radio button to permit the user to have
the option: all, individual, or off?


Thanks all over the place.



From: visurfacereader-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:visurfacereader-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Burgess
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 5:52 AM
To: visurfacereader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [visurfacereader] Poll on flexibility versus ease




I'm finalising the code for reading LED lamps and there's a trade-off to
handle.  The current design allows you to define named states (e.g. on, off,
flashing, red, rein, etc.) for each LED that you define.  This is very
flexible and will survive any conceivable LED implementation that a
manufacturer could come up with.  The downside is that, if you've got a
protocol that defines 50 lamps, each of which supports 5 states, you've got
to define a total of 250 states, which is boring at best.  A work-around
would be to provide a check box that, if checked, would make all LED lamp
interpretation for the protocol point to a single set of state definitions.
From a code point of view this is a bit of a cop-out, so I'd appreciate
feedback on what behaviour users would prefer to experience.  


I'm under a reasonable amount of time pressure, so I'll have to make a
decision within the next 48 hours or so, so please have a think and respond.


Best wishes.


Tim Burgess

Raised Bar Ltd

Phone:  +44 (0)1827 719822


Don't forget to vote for improved access to music and music technology at






Other related posts: