You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have spent a good amount of time manually correcting a a large number of alignements generated with an automated forced aligner. For that, I need to click on lots of phoneme boundaries and drag them to the correct position.
Placing the cursor on the exact boundary takes an amount of time which, while negligible when dealing with a dozen boundaries, becomes very significant with thousands (even for a relatively young, able-bodied and computer-savvy individual such as myself).
I suggest making the clickable area for boundary selection wider.
If one fears this might interfere too much with interval selection, such an enlargement could be conditional to the pressing of a modifier key (that is, pressing the modifier key would make the clickable area wider, and releasing it would switch back to current behavior). Alternatively, the width of the boundary clickable area could be made configurable.
I acknowledge the situation could be much worse: I know that there is software out there which requires you to click 1-pixel-wide areas; and the situation in Praat is much better than that already, with boundaries being about 10 pixels(?) wide. However, since repetitive manual editing is a very real use case of Praat, I feel that such a fluidity-related concern is still legitimate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have spent a good amount of time manually correcting a a large number of alignements generated with an automated forced aligner. For that, I need to click on lots of phoneme boundaries and drag them to the correct position.
Placing the cursor on the exact boundary takes an amount of time which, while negligible when dealing with a dozen boundaries, becomes very significant with thousands (even for a relatively young, able-bodied and computer-savvy individual such as myself).
I suggest making the clickable area for boundary selection wider.
If one fears this might interfere too much with interval selection, such an enlargement could be conditional to the pressing of a modifier key (that is, pressing the modifier key would make the clickable area wider, and releasing it would switch back to current behavior). Alternatively, the width of the boundary clickable area could be made configurable.
I acknowledge the situation could be much worse: I know that there is software out there which requires you to click 1-pixel-wide areas; and the situation in Praat is much better than that already, with boundaries being about 10 pixels(?) wide. However, since repetitive manual editing is a very real use case of Praat, I feel that such a fluidity-related concern is still legitimate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: