Message #817

From: Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] feedback
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:52:18 -0600

Hi Kyle,

The group always welcomes suggestions for enhancements to the program, and
hence your interface doesn’t fail to meet any standards. I for one was
interested to read and try to understand your ideas, even though I didn’t
feel I had anything to add to them. I can comment that there may not be
much motivation to change the current behavior because we already have a
very nice twisting interface. If something like you’ve described were added
(and of course someone has to be motivated enough to do the work to code
it!), it would certainly be in addition to the current behavior, with an
option to choose the mode (as you considered). I find the elegance of the
current behavior unassailable, and don’t imagine I’d prefer something
different. But I can understand that different solution methods than I use,
like the one you described after joining the group, might lend themselves to
an alternative design.

Might I suggest adding your feature request to our issue
tracker<http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/list>,
so that the idea does not get lost?

Take Care,
Roice

P.S. David’s comments about the possibility of a 1-click interface in 5D
were simply earlier in the original thread,
here<http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/message/811>
.

On 1/12/10, kygron <kygron@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ok, thank you for letting me know why my description failed to meet your
> needs, now I can adjust it accordingly. As you can see, I don’t know what
> your needs are, which is why I was unable to put the work into describing,
> in your language, the solution I had come up with.
>
> What I gave you was not a complete N-D 1 click interface, just as you say.
> However, it WAS a complete 4-D 1 click interface that would be better (for
> people like me, perhaps have options in the menu?), and I have included it
> below for reference. If able, please let me know if/how this particular
> interface fails to meet your standards.
>
> I would like to see David’s work on this. If you have a link, or even a
> suitable search term, please let me know. My feeling on this matter is that,
> while he may be correct, a N-D solution is currently unnecessary. If we
> could get even a 2-click 6-D solution that would be all we ever need, and
> more than we have.
>
> My full solution involves a multi-click "conversation" with the interface,
> but the interface is able to make enough (predictable) assumptions that one
> or two clicks is all that will be necessary for common twists. I believe the
> macro system is already set up this way (though I haven’t used it much).
> Select a macro, set reference positions, execute macro, etc.
>
> Kyle
>
>
> Complete 3^4 1-click instant gratification interface:
>
> 3 mouse buttons
> left-click
> right-click
> translate-click
>
> 3 slices, as standard
>
> the interface is a 3x3 "face" of a 4-face viewed as a 3^3. Call it the
> board for
> now. this is slice 1, any work with alternate slices requires a slice
> button.
>
> translate-click board center: entire 4face translates toward board
> (adjacent
> 4face rotates all slices from perpendicular)
>
> left/right-click board center: board rotates (opposite 4face rotates
> opposite
> direction)
>
> translate-click board edge: board translates in direction of
> edge-from-center
> (opposite 4face rotates from perpendicular)
>
> left/right-click a board edge: nothing
> any-click a board corner: nothing
>
> that’s everything you need! you can even avoid the slice masks altogether
> if you
> allow edge-of-sticky clicking. each board boundary defines one board-slice
> and
> direction for translating. rotate-click a board edge for a board-slice
> rotation.
>
>
> — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green <melinda@…> wrote:
> >
> > Kyle,
> >
> > I don’t think that you gave us a solution. Maybe I didn’t understand
> > enough of what you were saying, but it seems as if you have come up with
> > exactly as much of a inkling as several of us have, and then got stumped
> > at the same point that we do. IOW, we all smell a N-D 1-click UI but
> > can’t quite see how to nail it down. So it’s not a lack of interest,
> > just a lack of inspiration for taking the idea any further than this.
> > David, who is one of our more mathematically inclined members did
> > comment in detail, suggesting that we’re on the wrong track in the first
> > place, which seems like a perfectly good explanation for why we all get
> > stuck at the same point: It’s a perfectly natural idea that simply
> > doesn’t work. So you were not ignored, but I’m not surprised that nobody
> > has much more to add to the subject.
> >
> > -Melinda
> >
> > kygron wrote:
> > > so when you guys say that you’ve been looking for a solution to a
> problem for years and you can’t come up with one and you’d love to have some
> method and then someone GIVES you one, not necessarily the perfect final
> solutions, but at least it’s a step in the direction you said you want to go
> in…. that’s not interesting?
> > >
> > > ok, guess you guys weren’t ready for solutions that don’t involve twist
> counts. I’ll stop before I sound rude, feel free to ignore the question mark
> above.
> > >
> > > Kyle
> > >
> > > — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green <melinda@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> No Kyle, you didn’t commit any faux pas but then your last message
> > >> didn’t contain any questions, and I guess nobody felt like replying.
> > >> Most of the time this list is very quiet until something interesting
> > >> comes up and causes a flurry of activity before going back to sleep
> > >> again. Don’t be shy about asking questions or initiating discussion on
> > >> any topic even tangentially related to 4D cubing, but it’s up to you
> to
> > >> make it interesting enough to elicit replies if that’s what you
> want. ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Happy New Year!
> > >> -Melinda
> > >>
> > >> kygron wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> really sorry to do this, but I’m confused. I posted a message that
> was responded to within a few hours, so I followed up with one I thought
> would be even better, and there’s silence for days. Have I committed some
> kind of internet faux pas? Or was I just really lucky to catch you guys at a
> good time the first time? confused,
> > >>>
> > >>> Kyle
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ————————————
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ————————————
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>