Intensity Block

Create a Macro.

Well, I must admit that was an answer which i'd expect to read on the Blue Room, not here!

Yes, I could create a macro. I have several macros which do things like this.

For me though, creating a macro wouldn't be any more helpful. I have macros 801, 802 & 803 setup as snapshots. If I were to create a macro to do this it would take just as much time to access the macro (either by using direct selects or justing typing MACRO N ENTER) than it would it to type INTENSITY, BLOCK, ENTER.

As we now have a shiny new SHIFT button, which when pressed in conjunction with the BLOCK button currently performs the same function as not using the SHIFT button, I think that SHIFT + BLOCK would be useful for creating intensity blocks. 

I know it's a minor thing but I think it would be quite useful. 

Cheers, Andrew

A good idea, Andrew - one snag might be that there are other candidates for Shift-Block - such as Unblock or Block+Assert. I wonder if a consensus can be found?

-luke-

Hi Andrew,

You'll be pleased to know It's coming... I suggested this a while back and it's on the list! It will be a big time saver, particularly on Gio and Ion.

Cheers

Dan

Jolly good idea i would vote in favour of intensity block. 

Unblock is potentially far more useful, as it's a feature we currently don't have....

Removing the toggle behaviour of Block and having a defined Block/Unblock command would make a lot of macros much easier...

-J

JMcGarrigle said:

Removing the toggle behaviour of Block and having a defined Block/Unblock command would make a lot of macros much easier...

You make a good point sir!

I agree with John that Unblock is feature we don't currently have but would be immensely useful. However, if there were another syntax to grant that behavior (such as [Block] [Block] [Enter] ) I would be happy for the shortcut to Intensity Block as [Shift] [Block]. I don't really mind either way as long as we have an Unblock command.

-M

Good point Marc.

I would suggest [Block] [Block] for Intensity Block however, to keep some vague sense of [Shift] performing the inverse action of another key.... not that really applies many other places at the moment... wishful thinking I guess!

-J

As I said, I don't mind either way. As for Shift being an inverse function, I think you're correct in saying that it doesn't really apply (and will continue to not apply with additional Shift functions) so there is no need to try and force it to behave as such. Both syntax extensions are the same number of keystrokes so I'm happy with either one, however I'd point out that the current method to "Unblock" is [Block] [Enter] [Block] [Enter] so perhaps [Block] [Block] [Enter] may make more sense for "Unblock".

Meh.

-M

As I said, I don't mind either way. As for Shift being an inverse function, I think you're correct in saying that it doesn't really apply (and will continue to not apply with additional Shift functions) so there is no need to try and force it to behave as such. Both syntax extensions are the same number of keystrokes so I'm happy with either one, however I'd point out that the current method to "Unblock" is [Block] [Enter] [Block] [Enter] so perhaps [Block] [Block] [Enter] may make more sense for "Unblock".

Meh.

-M

Chaosbob said:

Meh.

Agreed.

Throwing my vote in for consistency, where possible, for any function.

I have a lot of inexperienced users and visitors in my venue and all those erratic and arbitrary choices are barriers to using the console. So if "un" is synonymous with "shift", or "un" is synonymous with "double-tap", or they all toggle when applied again doesn't matter, but please pick one model and stick with it.