All,
I think this idea has gone down in flames.
At this point, the poll is 7 for and 41 against - roughly 85% against. I appreciate everyone's input and will continue to monitor this thread for additional comments.
In many engineering projects you are forced to make trade-offs. I think it is clear that the trade-offs we made 8 years ago were the correct ones. But it rarely hurts to re-evaluate your decisions once in a while.
Looking through the comments, let me address some of the items that were brought up.
Double-click, PH instead of quad-click... Double-click, PH is already taken - it is the brightness menu.
Always go to B from A or D, or make it configurable... In a very early implementation of this interface - in 2002, toggle did return from A or D to B. After much playing around, we made it remember which primary/secondary it had come from and made toggle return to there. That was a significant improvement. That was what eventually shipped. Adding more settable options will only complicate the interface.
Add additional reachable presets from off... Triple-click is already taken - it is used for the button lock. However, double-click might be free. To illustrate one possible difficulty, assume turn on is to preset B at 12 lumens and you make double-click from off turn on to preset D at 0.3 lumens. A requirement of the interface is that on the first click the light turns on to preset B - just in case there is only one click. So at a minimum, the light has to be on 12 lumens for one whole click duration before changing to 0.3 lumens. However, the current UI generally requires a command be completed prior to changing the lights value so the light would be on 12 lumens for the whole command time rather than just one click. This is not exactly optimum behavior from off.
Returning to the preset with the closest value... This is an intriguing idea. I'll have to think about this for a while.
Henry.
