Enumeration Q.

I do also think the subevents need a little more individualism... I like Ashley's idea of "1, 2, 3" quite a bit I also like the idea of colors, so both wouldn't hurt. But anything to make them easier to distinguish would be great.

Idealy such display in the event sheet should be dealt with in a "customize event sheet display" dialog with checkboxes.

Each one could end up displaying the event sheets to its liking.

That would be great yes *nods

> Perhaps sub-events could just be separately numbered 1, 2, 3... at each nesting level?

Ashley Not sure what you mean?

After each event, the sub event count start again, it's like to say 3.1 for the first sub event inside the event 3, but rather than that, it will simple say 1, with an identification (colored, dotted line, whatever) of that event 3.

How about these?

<img src="http://www.Logofusion.com/att/GUI-1.jpg" border="0" />

I agree, but I have to say, that incremental organized index help a lot, independent of everything, when the software way, you have a problem with the event 1531, you'll go rightly there and see the problem, and the context, but using your system pure and without index, how you'll search the problem? Plus, if you reproduce the bad code for many sub-events before testing, what will happen? A mess.

May a hybrid of these two systems can improve the system and make everyone happy =)

and the context, but using your system pure and without index, how you'll search the problem?

That's an easy one. The enumeration as we see today will be a toggled enumeration. You'll be able to toggle it on/off as with many text editors.

I also added a "Goto Line/Event" field at the top of Option #3. A small blue arrow will mark the event you wish to deal with.

Personally I love option #3 since it's clear, elegant, lacks the retina-burning purple space which occupy huge empty spaces and serve no purpose.

People always mention CC as a reference and as something they got used to. You must keep in mind that some people are new to Scirra universe and C2 is their first encounter. As such the thing/elements/items the original CC users see as "normal" do not look like that to the new comers.

Tradition is not (always) a good thing.

If you show these 3 options to an outsider, he'll point out that option #3 looks far more professional than option #1. If you'll take any software and plant huge color spaces in them lots of eye-brows will raise. What's the purpose of such monotonic rectangular, they will ask.

Well, this is how I see it. Graphic is a matter of personal taste but I'm sure that showing these 3 to a non CC original user will produce a tendency towards the les purple and more clear/neat option.

radition is not (always) a good thing.

That's true, to some extent.

Over tradition, consider also the "proof-test" of time.

The CC reference comes from the fact that it was tested over hundreds of users for at least the 4 past years.

It is the result of the experience of coders who actually used the software and gave feedback.

So where we agree is that "Graphic is a matter of personal taste" and allowing for customizing options would cover more personnal preferences/possibilities/choices than just one fixed display.