USBee logic analysers/USB oscilloscopes



  • I've been playing with basic electronics as a pastime and fancied getting a basic oscilloscope so I can see what's going on on the breadboard. USBee make very expensive ($500+ for one analogue channel) boxes to do this over USB. This is competitive with say an actual analogue scope, but is still quite expensive for what Chinese clone makers produce for $42.

    I download the software to try out the demo stuff, just curious.

    Now bear in mind this is the interface for a $995 device made with $15 of parts.


    You can crash this software by taking the Seconds/Division dial and pushing it out of bounds.

    That's one click between starting the program and a crash.

    [i]Christ.[/i]



  •  Personally I'd send them an email dripping with sarcasm.



  • It's such a good looking program I'm sure they're very good programmers that would love to fix it.



  • That's a Visual Basic 6 error message.



    But TRWTF is making your programs' controls look like physical knobs instead of something sane like a text input.





  • @lolwtf said:

    That's a Visual Basic 6 error message.



    But TRWTF is making your programs' controls look like physical knobs instead of something sane like a text input.
    Given that the sort of people who would use this type of device would be familiar with physical CRO I'd say that modeling the UI after the real device makes sense. Never ever having seen this software I took one look at the pic and instantly knew that where the controls were laid out was familiar and that I could use this software with very little effort.

    In addition the UI layout facilitates swapping out the virtual CRO and replacing it with a physical CRO and then just dialing in the same setup in order to see the same waveforms.

    Sometimes a direct physical representation in a UI is the best way to go and it would be a step backwards for the target audience if you went to text boxes.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

     TRWTF is $500 for 1 channel.

    http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9263

    Ten seconds of Googling.

     



  • @lolwtf said:

    That's a Visual Basic 6 error message.



    But TRWTF is making your programs' controls look like physical knobs instead of something sane like a text input.

    At least they're using some OS components for buttons and checkboxes and stuff. You ever use a VST? 95% of them do that and the 5% that don't try to mock up some god-awful interfect.



  • @OzPeter said:

    Given that the sort of people who would use this type of device would be familiar with physical CRO I'd say that modeling the UI after the real device makes sense.
    Trying to replicate the real world on a computer screen is one of those things that seems to make a lot of sense but in actual practice it doesn't always work so well. 

    For example, I have a guitar amp which allows me to connect via USB and modify/save various settings using software on my PC.  The software works well, but, it has several "knobs" that you "turn",  just like a real amp.  Personally, I find that trying to "turn a knob" with a mouse is quite annoying.  It is often difficult to get the mouse pointer in just exactly the right location and move the mouse in just exactly the right manner so that the "knob" goes exactly where you want it.  The software looks really nice and the use of "knobs" seems perfectly logical and "realistic" since all guitar amps in the real world have knobs.  And if there weren't any knobs, just text boxes, people almost certainly would complain that the software looks "crude" or "primitive".  After all, this is the 21st century dammit!!  And we're supposed to have cool looking software.

    But in actual use, it would be much faster and easier to just type a number into a text box.



  •  No, the real WTF would be mixing a wholly visual interface (the 'scope display) with a textual one with no real cue as to what they accept (like a text box).

    I suppose you could use a combobox but it still wouldn't give you the at-a-glance indication that a skeumorphic knob does - not that those are realistic enough to really use the term.

    There's a good reason why most cars don't have digital speedometers, you know...



  • For knobbly software, if they insist on pretty interface, they could also easily add the feature where if you move your mouse above the knob and scroll the mouse wheel it turns the knob. Easy and still looks "nice".

     

    Also, that link for the cheap osciloscope also has a link in the first comment to the comparison of several other <500$ devices.



  •  @El_Heffe said:

    But in actual use, it would be much faster and easier to just type a number into a text box.
     

    There'd be nothing stopping them having both: the turning knobs for the knobs, er, coolness factor, and text input boxes for practical. After all that knob control would appear as a number to the program, why no expose it in a text box?

    @El_Heffe said:

    After all, this is the 21st century dammit!!  And we're supposed to have cool looking software.

    Like in Minority Report or something? That would be an example of taking things too far.



  • @OzPeter said:

    @lolwtf said:
    But TRWTF is making your programs' controls look like physical knobs instead of something sane like a text input.
    Sometimes a direct physical representation in a UI is the best way to go and it would be a step backwards for the target audience if you went to text boxes.

    None of thise either/or false-dichotomy crap. Use both, for pete's sake.

    It's pretty dumb to just use a knob-simulator.

    It's equally dumb to just use a textbox.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Personally, I find that trying to "turn a knob" with a mouse is quite annoying.  It is often difficult to get the mouse pointer in just exactly the right location and move the mouse in just exactly the right manner so that the "knob" goes exactly where you want it.
     

    Yes. The cause being that nobody can agree on how to drag a round button. I've seen horrible implementations where you have to actually "rotate" the knob, and more sane implementations where dragging the knob horizontally or vertically changes its value.

    But just offering a text box where you are forced to type shit is equally horrible. You want a fluid form of interaction. Example: firebug's numerical values in CSS. Select a value, then hold Up or Down. TADAA. That's how you do it. Photoshop's draggable field labels are equally awesome.



  • @Gordonjcp said:

    I suppose you could use a combobox
     

    Get out. I don't want you in my class anymore.



  • Turn it into a spinner and be done with it (one of those number text boxes with 2 arrows next to it) Best of all worlds.



  • @OzPeter said:

    @lolwtf said:
    That's a Visual Basic 6 error message.



    But TRWTF is making your programs' controls look like physical knobs instead of something sane like a text input.
    Given that the sort of people who would use this type of device would be familiar with physical CRO I'd say that modeling the UI after the real device makes sense. Never ever having seen this software I took one look at the pic and instantly knew that where the controls were laid out was familiar and that I could use this software with very little effort.

    In addition the UI layout facilitates swapping out the virtual CRO and replacing it with a physical CRO and then just dialing in the same setup in order to see the same waveforms.

    Sometimes a direct physical representation in a UI is the best way to go and it would be a step backwards for the target audience if you went to text boxes.

    Many (most?) modern scopes still have rotary knobs, but they do not have scale markings (or movement limits) and are used as a multipurpose input device - the value they control is selected via a button or menu, and the value's current setting is displayed on the screen. I find this as natural, if not more so, as older style fixed-function knobs (for appropriate parameters, of course).

    But trying to replicate a rotary knob in a mouse-driven UI is just dumb. Does any mainstream UI widget library include them? There's probably a reason for that. And not only are they a pain to use, but to me they seem rather wasteful of screen real estate too.

    The only software I've seen that includes rotary knobs is exactly this kind of stuff - a hacked up GUI (probably developed by an embedded software engineer slumming it - or by the intern) trying to replicate physical hardware, usually lab equipment. OK, maybe something like LabView has them, but I'm willing to bet that they're not loved.

    It's as if these guys see the identifying feature of a scope not as the display (the 'scope' part of the word 'scope'), but as the knobs. And they seem to think that the people who will use this kit are unable to adapt to modern (or not so modern) GUI elements such as sliders, spin controls, combo boxes, etc etc. Because of course they don't use these sorts of things in every other aspect of their professional and personal lives, do they?



  • @dhromed said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    Personally, I find that trying to "turn a knob" with a mouse is quite annoying.  It is often difficult to get the mouse pointer in just exactly the right location and move the mouse in just exactly the right manner so that the "knob" goes exactly where you want it.
     

    Yes. The cause being that nobody can agree on how to drag a round button. I've seen horrible implementations where you have to actually "rotate" the knob, and more sane implementations where dragging the knob horizontally or vertically changes its value.

    But just offering a text box where you are forced to type shit is equally horrible. You want a fluid form of interaction. Example: firebug's numerical values in CSS. Select a value, then hold Up or Down. TADAA. That's how you do it. Photoshop's draggable field labels are equally awesome.

    I think one of the main problems with trying to develop a 'natural' GUI for a scope is that, when you're adjusting a scope with a physical knob, you're looking at the screen, not the knob. A big knob in peripheral vision is easy to find and use while you're looking at the waveform display.

    It's very hard to do this with a mouse, both in terms of carrying out the control action itself, and in terms of easily locating the control in the first place. Click-and-drag, and the mouse wheel, are probably the closest you'll get, but actually locating the control in the first place is still a problem. You'll probably find that a function key and cursor up/down are actually the easiest to use without looking - but who wants to use keys?

    Probably the best solution would be a USB device with a couple of knobs and buttons on it. But they're probably more expensive than the scope module itself (moving parts and all that...)



  • @Weng said:

     TRWTF is $500 for 1 channel.

    http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9263

    Ten seconds of Googling.

     


    Yeah there's a lot of alternatives. I don't know how they keep going really. Best bit is their page on counterfeits.

    But they're probably more expensive than the scope module itself (moving parts and all that...)
    Massive rotary encoders with big solder tags meant for prototyping/etc. are £0.70 each on Rapid. Sure you'd also need a dial on top, possibly a little extra support hardware, but for a $500+ device I figure that's not much to ask.

    For a company that loves to preach fairness and honesty they sure do know how to nickel and dime.


  • @dhromed said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    Personally, I find that trying to "turn a knob" with a mouse is quite annoying.  It is often difficult to get the mouse pointer in just exactly the right location and move the mouse in just exactly the right manner so that the "knob" goes exactly where you want it.
     

    Yes. The cause being that nobody can agree on how to drag a round button. I've seen horrible implementations where you have to actually "rotate" the knob, and more sane implementations where dragging the knob horizontally or vertically changes its value.

    But just offering a text box where you are forced to type shit is equally horrible. You want a fluid form of interaction. Example: firebug's numerical values in CSS. Select a value, then hold Up or Down. TADAA. That's how you do it. Photoshop's draggable field labels are equally awesome.

    I have used programs that simulate different kinds of video boards and they have virtual knobs.  The knobs don't rotate in that you move your mouse in circles or anything stupid.  You drag the knob left to right to rotate it, and it works nicely (they also have small text boxes above the knobs that displays the current value and if you do not like the knob you can type the value in).  It is sad that many software developers do not know how to properly implement virtual knobs, but it is not the knobs fault.


  • @El_Heffe said:

    For example, I have a guitar amp ....

    But in actual use, it would be much faster and easier to just type a number into a text box.

    Except that the bone-headed Nigels who program your text box will make it only one digit wide, so you can't go higher than 9. 

     



  • @Gordonjcp said:

     No, the real WTF would be mixing a wholly visual interface (the 'scope display) with a textual one with no real cue as to what they accept (like a text box).

    I suppose you could use a combobox but it still wouldn't give you the at-a-glance indication that a skeumorphic knob does - not that those are realistic enough to really use the term.

    There used to be this thing called a "slider"... OH HEY LOOKIE THERE THERE'S ONE RIGHT ON THE VOLUME CONTROL WIDGET THING so yes the OS this application was written for has perfectly functional sliders. The dumbshits who wrote it (and you, apparently) just weren't aware of that.

    But for a control like that, it should be paired with a textbox so you can put in a more specific value than the slider/dial allows.

    Even at the time they wrote this in Windows 3.11 (we HOPE!) this was a fucking SOLVED PROBLEM. I think my new definition of "bad programmer" is "a programmer who continues to re-solve an already solved problem". Because they're either so full of themselves that they think they can do better than the researchers at Apple who solved it, or they're so ignorant that they're completely unaware it's a solved problem in the first place. (Or perhaps they chose a toolset so poor that they have no choice other than to re-solve it, like pretty much any Java GUI tool.)



  • @Shinhan7 said:

    For knobbly software, if they insist on pretty interface, they could also easily add the feature where if you move your mouse above the knob and scroll the mouse wheel it turns the knob. Easy and still looks "nice".

    And if the user has no scrollwheel? It's not required to operate Windows. (Neither is the second mouse button, BTW.) Trackpads frequently don't have scrollwheels, ditto trackballs.

    And of course there's the even more obvious, the user's pointing device isn't a mouse at all? Maybe it's a touchscreen or stylus which has no concept of "hover"?

    Please God tell me you never design UIs.

    BTW, the User Interface Hall of Shame has FOUR examples of applications that inappropriately try to mimic physical controls: IBM Real Phone, IBM Real CD, my nemesis Quicktime 4 (the harbinger of Apple's slide into mediocrity), and ReadPlease 2000. Keep in mind, this site has been around like over 10 years now... their Quicktime 4 review was written shortly after it actually came out. These concepts aren't new. Developers who don't know this are just morons who have no business being anywhere near UI design.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There used to be this thing called a "slider"... OH HEY LOOKIE THERE THERE'S ONE RIGHT ON THE VOLUME CONTROL WIDGET THING so yes the OS this application was written for has perfectly functional sliders. The dumbshits who wrote it (and you, apparently) just weren't aware of that.
     

    Was going to point that out. Thank you.

    Though the only reason I can think of (and it isn't a good one) that the slider isn't more prevalent might be this: there's no native slider UI in a web browser. If someone get their start (or have only ever done) web development, they wouldn't realize they have access to it.

     Of course, the fact that they create a shitty new UI rather than spending 5 minutes googling to learn about an existing one just makes them shitty people with shitty software. But we knew that already.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    But for a control like that, it should be paired with a textbox so you can put in a more specific value than the slider/dial allows.

    More specific than 5,2, or 1?

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    BTW, the User Interface Hall of Shame has FOUR examples of applications that inappropriately try to mimic physical controls: IBM Real Phone, IBM Real CD, my nemesis Quicktime 4 (the harbinger of Apple's slide into mediocrity), and ReadPlease 2000.

    Oh god, I'll bet Real Phone has some deliciously horrible tab key order.



  • @db2 said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    BTW, the User Interface Hall of Shame has FOUR examples of applications that inappropriately try to mimic physical controls: IBM Real Phone, IBM Real CD, my nemesis Quicktime 4 (the harbinger of Apple's slide into mediocrity), and ReadPlease 2000.

    Oh god, I'll bet Real Phone has some deliciously horrible tab key order.

    Based on my reading of the page, I don't think Real Phone has a tab order, or even input focus. Read the part where pressing Enter while adding a quick dial will cause the phone to dial the first number in the list.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    BTW, the User Interface Hall of Shame has FOUR examples of applications that inappropriately try to mimic physical controls:
     

    Even more importantly, they're still doing it.  Cisco's softphone is a perfect example.  I'm OK with doing some mimicry, but the softphone's volume button exactly mimics the volume control on the physical phone, requiring separate clicks on the "-" side to reduce the volume or separate clicks on the "+" side to increase.  They could have put in a slider, at least, even if they wanted to make their own control that still LOOKED like the volume control on the physical phone.  You can't click and hold to drop the volume several notches, nope, it's just "press" it once for one notch, just like the real phone.

    Which on the face of it would ALSO stupid - why would you waste that much time building a button that looks one way but can operate in a more intuitive way - until you realize they already spent an inordinate amount of effort to build a completely custom button that already does that, only completely unintuitively.

     P.S. Love that site - I wish it would get some new content...



  • @mahlerrd said:

    P.S. Love that site - I wish it would get some new content...

    It's been dead for a decade, but man it was epic back in the day.

    I've thought about reviving it, or imitating it, but honestly? Compared to the shit those guys were dealing with, software today isn't all that bad. Except Lotus Notes, it's still shit. (Their article on it starts, paraphrased, "if only we'd experienced Lotus Notes before, we wouldn't have bothered reviewing all of those other pieces of software-- Notes has EVERY PROBLEM WE'VE ENCOUNTERED and more".)



  • If you ever do make your own hall of fame, I have some entry suggestions:



    -LTSpice. This program is incredibly cumbersome and hard to use mostly because it appears on the surface to use standard UI conventions but works in its own weird way. Even things like copy/pasting/rotating components is a confusing chore.

    -SoundCue editor. (UnrealEngine 3) After seeing the success of Kismet and the Material editor as node-based scripting languages, someone tried to do the same for audio but forgot to turn their brain on at any point during the process. The end result is functionality identical to a list of options, but via a flowchart interface that's hard to understand because there's no actual information flow. Here's the documentation. It won't take you long.



  • Are you certain that's the current software? I've only used USBee suite and it's quite good (looks good, easy to use).


    My only complaint was the $1000 USBee dx only does 25s or so of sampling. I used the USBee for debugging some logic stuff and a real scope for other work. Hell deal extreme has decent 'real' scopes for $300 (3 channels!! woo). I couldn't have survived with less than 2 channels.

    For i2c/spi I use an Ardvark (by Total Phase). Good tool, software works fine, easy to use, but isn't going to win any beauty pageants. At $250 I couldn't complain as it saved way more than that in debugging i2c issues.. well, idiot coder issues that were easier to debug via the i2c traffic, "Why is this sending a message ever 10ms?! It's supposed to be reading once per second..."



  • @dubbreak said:

    It looks like a circus lion ate a clown and then puked it up all over your desktop. And then the lion tried to construct his own non-native controls so things would be more "intuitive".



  • Yeah that's the newer suite. I downloaded the latest version and got two separate suites, the generic USBee one you pictured and then one specific to AX.
    Oh, and that white bar in line with the toolbar is a scrollbar.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    It looks like a circus lion ate a clown and then puked it up all over your desktop.
    More it looks like somebody found out about DWM, and went crazy on aeroifiyng the interface (at least that looks like the default Vista background shining through the UI to me).


    Speaking of weird UI conventions with a normal-looking GUI, Navision anyone?



  • @ender said:

    More it looks like somebody found out about DWM

    I'm not sure I follow.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm not sure I follow.
    DWM Blur Behind Overview



  • @ender said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I'm not sure I follow.
    DWM Blur Behind Overview

    Ohhh.. I thought you meant dwm..



  • @nexekho said:

    Now bear in mind this is the interface for a $995 device made with $15 of parts....

    Was that UI created with LabView? If so, then it's likely that some clueless EE did the coding.



  • '@morbiuswilters said:

    It looks like a circus lion ate a clown and then puked it up all over your desktop. And then the lion tried to construct his own non-native controls so things would be more "intuitive".

    It's colorful for a reason. The colors match the physical colors of the input wires. I found it quite easy to use (never needed to look at a manual) and very easy to read despite the lion puke. You can have the wave form as well as a conversion to hex parallel to it which suited my needs at that time perfectly.


    One stupid thing is that the hardware has a black input line and ground is black as well. Why double up on a color? Especially one that is commonly used as ground.



  • @spamcourt said:

    @nexekho said:

    Now bear in mind this is the interface for a $995 device made with $15 of parts....

    Was that UI created with LabView? If so, then it's likely that some clueless EE did the coding.

    Oh $deity, the things I've seen created by EEs in LabView....



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Personally, I find that trying to "turn a knob" with a mouse is quite annoying.  It is often difficult to get the mouse pointer in just exactly the right location and move the mouse in just exactly the right manner so that the "knob" goes exactly where you want it.  The software looks really nice and the use of "knobs" seems perfectly logical and "realistic" since all guitar amps in the real world have knobs.  And if there weren't any knobs, just text boxes, people almost certainly would complain that the software looks "crude" or "primitive".  After all, this is the 21st century dammit!!  And we're supposed to have cool looking software.

    FL Studio, for example, solves this problem in a very elegant manner - you've got knobs, but they behave like invisible vertical scrollbars, click and hold the mouse, and adjusting the value is done by dragging up/down. thanks to that it has all the aesthetics of a knob and all the usability of a proper computer-designed UI element. And dragging the mouse usually is much quicker than moving to keyboard and typing in the value. Plus it invites to experiment with the values.



  • @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    aesthetics of a knob

    I have yet to see why that's so important.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @SEMI-HYBRID code said:
    aesthetics of a knob

    I have yet to see why that's so important.

    you wouldn't believe how much of a difference it sometimes makes (at least to me). working with something like this


    is a pleasure and a joy to me, and i can't even imagine how it could be done with windows common controls to be as much usable as it is like this.
    (yes, i believe that you can actually do a completely custom interface and do it good, and i believe this software to be an example of that. it has few of its own problems, but overally it's very easy and natural to use.)

    the knobs are just much more visually pleasing, they clearly state which values can be modified, how is it done, and what value they have, just from looking at them. in a software like this, for making music, you're not really interested in exact numeric values of the variables/parameters, but in the general position of the value in the whole range, which is a thing that sliders are good at, but they need too much real estate space as opposed to this kind of knob, and would make the interface to look WTFy ugly.

    btw, your question seems strange to me as i remember some "java interface sux" threads in here some time ago, where basically everyone agreed that java programs interface is horrible and it's one of the reasons why they don't like to use such software (Eclipse it was, if i remember correctly, and some other examples).



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @SEMI-HYBRID code said:
    aesthetics of a knob

    I have yet to see why that's so important.

     

    It's not about the visual aesthetics of a knob at all. The graphical quality of the knob is by and large irrelevant (Sonic Visualizer has butt-ugly knobs). It is about having a compact UI element that can be dragged across the breath or width of your screen. This offers more fine-grain control than a slider which wich has limited length.

    A draggable button is much preferred over a slider where:

    • the resolution within its value range (ex. three decimals between 0 and 1, or exponential increase, etc) is greater than can be practically achieved with a slider, which might have to be monstrous in length. With a dragbutton, you get that length for free.
    • you have lots of sliders. For example in audio engineering software.
    • there must be or can be real-time updates of the slider's changes.
    In many cases, none of this is a 100% replacement for a text input. You probably want to provide both, and additionally implement smooth value change with arrow keys that does much the same as dragging the knob.

    The scrubber controls you often find in movie-editing software are in fact the same controls as these knobs we're discussing.



  • @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    you wouldn't believe how much of a difference it sometimes makes (at least to me). working with something like this


    is a pleasure and a joy to me, and i can't even imagine how it could be done with windows common controls to be as much usable as it is like this.
    (yes, i believe that you can actually do a completely custom interface and do it good, and i believe this software to be an example of that. it has few of its own problems, but overally it's very easy and natural to use.)

    Other than the graphical keyboard, I don't see anything in that screenshot that can't be replicated with the windows common controls. And it'd be a hell of a lot less ugly. And it'd respect your color preferences. And it'd have normal window controls on those palette windows.

    I wager if you handed me that problem I could identify 20 bugs (due to their using stupid wrong custom controls) in the first 5 minutes. Probably more, if I ran it on my stylus-using tablet PC. Hell, I've found like 5 bugs from looking at the fucking screenshot. (Assuming it's not cropped, and it doesn't appear to be.)

    @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    btw, your question seems strange to me as i remember some "java interface sux" threads in here some time ago, where basically everyone agreed that java programs interface is horrible and it's one of the reasons why they don't like to use such software (Eclipse it was, if i remember correctly, and some other examples).

    The reason Java software "sux" is exactly because it's not using the Windows common controls, and so the controls all have subtle bugs. Also it's bloated and slow. Also the Java runtime is full of security bugs.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Other than the graphical keyboard, I don't see anything in that screenshot that can't be replicated with the windows common controls. And it'd be a hell of a lot less ugly.
     

    Windows has a standard value control that lets you drag it and is not a slider?

    It's very important that it's not a slider. I detailed why in my previous post. Sliders don't cut it in some cases.



  • @dhromed said:

    Windows has a standard value control that lets you drag it and is not a slider?

    Yeah, a scrollbar. Look about 5" to the right, there one is. Bam.

    Look, the problem isn't "writing your own control", the problem is that whenever a dev team writes their own control they inevitably get it wrong. Text fields in Safari? Wrong. That grid view in Chrome's developer tools? Completely, hilariously wrong. Everything GTK+ does? Wrong. Notepad++ gets the fucking drop down menus, probably the EASIEST CONTROL TO IMITATE, wrong.

    Now if these guys have happened to create a "dial" control that wasn't completely, hilariously wrong in 47 different ways, maybe that was a good solution for them. But I highly doubt it.

    @dhromed said:

    It's very important that it's not a slider. I detailed why in my previous post. Sliders don't cut it in some cases.

    Yeah well I think you're full of shit. I think your "cases" are also full of shit. No human being needs more resolution than a, say, 250 pixel slider would give, and you if want you nudge the slider a pixel at a time, you can already do that. So there goes your use cases. As for "being able to fit more controls on a window", you say that as if it's a good thing when it is, in fact, a terribly confusing and bad thing. So there goes that.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    No human being needs more resolution than a, say, 250 pixel slider would give. and you if want you nudge the slider a pixel at a time, you can already do that.

    I'm also quite happy with my 640KB of RAM.

    Once we get past your lack of imagination, however, this sounds like a usability nightmare. I don't disagree that you shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel, but if you don't have a dump truck wheel, that doesn't mean that you should use the bicycle wheel that was provided.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    No human being needs more resolution than a, say, 250 pixel slider would give. and you if want you nudge the slider a pixel at a time, you can already do that.

    I'm also quite happy with my 640KB of RAM.

    Once we get past your lack of imagination, however, this sounds like a usability nightmare. I don't disagree that you shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel, but if you don't have a dump truck wheel, that doesn't mean that you should use the bicycle wheel that was provided.

    Yes but have you considered this? You're Boomzilla, and thus you'd always disagree with me no matter what I said. So I don't give a shit what you think, nor should anybody else on this forum.

    Have you considered that?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Yes but have you considered this? You're Boomzilla, and thus you'd always disagree with me no matter what I said. So I don't give a shit what you think, nor should anybody else on this forum.

    Have you considered that?

    Well, I've considered that you're delusional and think all my posts are about you. There have been plenty of times where I've agreed with you. And plenty where I haven't. But I'm fairly certain that your enraged ad hominem tendencies are your own, and aren't widely shared on this forum.

    But it was a nice deflection away from the weakness of your argument. So good job on that count.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.