Work Needed on Line Styles, Thickness, Log-Scale, &OK-Cl

Dear denizen2 -

Thanks for the attention - as a matter of fact we'll be addressing the problems with uneven line thickness increments, this is in out ToDo list. I'll add the complaint about dashed styles.

As concerns the linear/semi-log scales, this works fine, I'm attaching a couple screenshots showing what selecting a scale does to an indicator.

Clicking the OK button once should also work just fine, as it did for me when making those screenshots for instance. Using the latest beta, of course - could you please contact us on HelpDesk (contact us on LiveSupport chat before that), we'd really like to watch this in realtime?

Dear denizen2 -
As concerns the linear/semi-log scales, this works fine, I'm attaching a couple screenshots showing what selecting a scale does to an indicator.

Ok, My 'problem' was related to a sub-chart with indicator having both negative and positive values, I now realize that log scales can not apply in such cases . But I still want to 'compress' the scale in such cases, so maybe a 'sigmoid' type scale would be appropriate. I guess I will have to apply such a function before it is plotted, since this is not likely to ever become an selectable scale option, right? There are more 'pressing' issues for the developers to work on, I am sure .

Dear denizen2 -
Clicking the OK button once should also work just fine, as it did for me when making those screenshots for instance.

Here is more specific info about when the double-click is required: When any indicator parameter value is changed, say by entering a new value, then if I click the OK button, nothing happens until I click it a 2nd time.

Here's why: If you watch the mouse 'black-focus' mark all during this two-step procedure, you will notice that the first click (anywhere outside of the parameter value field) will remove the black-focus mark that covers the parameter value just changed. I presume that this is supposed to mean that the value has been 'entered' and 'accepted'. But that is really un-necessary. As it is now, it is only until focus has been removed from the original field does the OK button even become 'active' or 'listening'. Thus requiring the double-click .

If I had just changed a 'radio-button' type selection, then this problem never occurs, e.g., when you just changed the scale mode between 'linear' and 'semi-log'. That was because there was no 'active focus' issue involved.

I would suggest that the 'focus' (Windows programming) behavior-logic should be changed so that if the OK button is clicked, then it means that any changed parameters values are automatically accepted (i.e., OK). It would sure be more consistent behavior than trying to remember if the last property change was a radio button, or was it just a parameter value that was changed? OK? What do you think?

Hopefuly rather than just tinker with line thicknesses the whole area of plots styles and properties will be added too. I know I keep on about Ensign (sorry but it represents one of the best packages in this particular area) it offers hundreds of properties for drawing objects. One of your designers really should take a look to see what is possible It might give you some ideas for better ways of implementing things - possibly simpler in the long run too.

Here is more specific info about when the double-click is required: When any indicator parameter value is changed, say by entering a new value, then if I click the OK button, nothing happens until I click it a 2nd time.

This may not look and feel convenient, but this is the proper behavior of focus - first click to take focus out of the text field, second to activate the OK button.

Hopefuly rather than just tinker with line thicknesses the whole area of plots styles and properties will be added too. I know I keep on about Ensign (sorry but it represents one of the best packages in this particular area) it offers hundreds of properties for drawing objects. One of your designers really should take a look to see what is possible It might give you some ideas for better ways of implementing things - possibly simpler in the long run too.

Nick

You keep on going on about how good Ensign is. Why don't you just use Ensign then instead of trying convince the developers of MC to make MC look like Ensign?

I do use Ensign of course. My goal is to see MC as good as it could possibly be. The best way to do that is to compare it to the best. I have spent hundreds of hours testing and providing feedback in ways that it could be improved to try to achieve that end.

Currently the best tools available for drawing stuff are Ensign, and for building systems studies, Neoticker seems streets ahead. To not be aware of what the competiiton is doing (particularly the competiton that represents the best) is going to make design and development harder for sure especialy whan your benchmark is TS (actually its supercharts when it comes to drawing).

I have a suggestion for 'guest', why don't you take your head out of you arse and provide some useful feedback rather than snipe at those that are trying to help make this the best product it can be. Failing that if MC is currently all you desire then dont post and dont read the forums. Oh and if you want to be taken seriously probably better not to post anonomously.

Apologies to every one else but it irritates me to have put such a huge amount of work into this product and have smug "£$%^*'s sitting there telling you to F off.

Here is more specific info about when the double-click is required: When any indicator parameter value is changed, say by entering a new value, then if I click the OK button, nothing happens until I click it a 2nd time.

This may not look and feel convenient, but this is the proper behavior of focus - first click to take focus out of the text field, second to activate the OK button.

The 'proper behavior of focus', as you put it, does not necessarily preclude the Windows-programing designer from implementing a more convenient-to-the-user strategy for ending a property-attributes-dialog.

I used to program down there at that 'the' Windows-programming level, and it was my experience that if desired, the focus in a text field could be 'ended' or 'changed' in more ways one.

I understand that the software development priorities might not currently allow time for consideration of 'every' user-interface 'issue', but in the spirit of trying to provide the best user-experience, please pass my suggestion onto the developers. It might be much easier than you think to accomplish, if someone just put their 'focus' on it .

We have, as you mentioned right, another priorities for the moment - we'll definitely do this but later.

I do use Ensign of course. My goal is to see MC as good as it could possibly be. The best way to do that is to compare it to the best. I have spent hundreds of hours testing and providing feedback in ways that it could be improved to try to achieve that end.

Currently the best tools available for drawing stuff are Ensign, and for building systems studies, Neoticker seems streets ahead. To not be aware of what the competiiton is doing (particularly the competiton that represents the best) is going to make design and development harder for sure especialy whan your benchmark is TS (actually its supercharts when it comes to drawing).

I have a suggestion for 'guest', why don't you take your head out of you arse and provide some useful feedback rather than snipe at those that are trying to help make this the best product it can be. Failing that if MC is currently all you desire then dont post and dont read the forums. Oh and if you want to be taken seriously probably better not to post anonomously.

Apologies to every one else but it irritates me to have put such a huge amount of work into this product and have smug "£$%^*'s sitting there telling you to F off.

A name like Nick is just as anonymous as Guest.

What is your interest to make MC "the best it can be"? Do you work for them? Do you get a cut from sales?

I think "Guest" has a point. If you are already using the best software out there (Ensign) this does seem silly to spend "hundreds of hours testing" and "put such a huge amount of work into this product", to make it look exactly like another product.

I am using MC because it provide me an alternative and something different to the other products out there. If I needed it to look like one of the other products, I would be using that product. I really don't see the point of having an Ensign clone. If you want MC to look like Ensign, then for heaven sake USE Ensign.

Chuck

I personally think both have a point.

We value the input that users (and Nick among the most active) provide, because the more points of view we have for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of our products, of Ensign etc. the sooner we add new useful features and the better will end product quality be.

On the other hand, we are not making a clone of Ensign or any other product - no one's saying MultiCharts is a "clone" of TS although it looks and feels much more similar to it.
Fine as any other product may be, we have our own vision and due respect for other developers.
We always welcome insightful criticism at our forums, so please comment - but also, dear visitors, please have respect for each other.