From: Nate Nystrom <nystrom_at_cs.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:36:05 -0400

On Thu Aug 29 02:27:11 +0200 2002, Uwe Freese wrote:
> Hello Nate,
>
> Nate Nystrom wrote on Wednesday, August 28, 2002, 10:42:45 PM:
>
> NN> I think you're right that most people would rather have acceleration
> NN> than fiddle with fixed step sizes. Setting the minimum step size to
> NN> 1s seems to work pretty well for me. However, if acceleration is
> NN> disabled, the behaviour is as before and having the option to change the
> NN> step size is again useful. I'm prefectly willing to remove the fixed
> NN> step size setting if that's the consensus; we can always leave it as a
> NN> compile-time option.
>
> I can live without the options, I think. But a suggestion:
>
> Maybe it's a good idea not to start playing the file directly when the
> user releases the key but with a delay of one second. So the user can
> first search with big speed through a 'two hour' file and then
> 'fine-adjust' the position after releasing the key shortly (because
> it begins with a small step size again after releasing the key).
>
> (Or does the current version work like this? I didn't try it yet.)
>
> Bye, Uwe.

It more or less behaves this way now for big adjustments in time. The
delay from the time you release the key until the disk seeks to the new
location and the track starts playing again gives you little bit of time
to fine tune the time. However, since I usually can't fine tune until I
hear a few seconds of the track to get my bearings, I think inserting an
additional delay before resuming play would just get annoying.

Nate
Received on 2002-08-29