Scratch 1.4 has this feature to show the duration of recording while recording, but unfortunately removed in Scratch 2.0. Can we add it back in Scratch 3.0 (maybe in minutes, as Scratch 1.4 uses minutes, according to https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/585572/?page=1#post-6094020)? It looks like this:

If it was removed, it probably didnt have much of a purpose. What is the purpose that this will serve in 3.0 and why would we need that purpose?

Probably to indicate people so they don't record things for too long.

Well, I'd support it, not for my personal use, but anyways for the some people I see what use it has.

bump

7salad3salad wrote:

If it was removed, it probably didnt have much of a purpose. What is the purpose that this will serve in 3.0 and why would we need that purpose?

The purpose would be to be able to see how long your sound recording is while you're recording it, possibly so that you don't record sounds for too long. (If you want a 10-second voice clip, it might be annoying to continually start over when you go over that time.)

Za-Chary wrote:

2.3 Set the editor to look like older versions of Scratch
Some users prefer the look and feel of the Scratch 2.0 editor, and have suggested that the editor look like Scratch 2.0, but still run off of HTML5 like Scratch 3.0 does. However, this would be more complicated for educational and documentation purposes. It could be confusing if someone is trying to learn Scratch from someone who is using a completely different layout of the editor than them.

In addition, the Scratch Team changed the design for a reason: to make it easier, more intuitive, and friendlier for newcomers to use. If you dislike the Scratch 3.0 editor, you can still download the Scratch 1.4 or Scratch 2.0 offline editors.

^That includes code editor, costumes editor, and sound editor. Before you post, I recommend you read The 6th suggestions directory, and The official list of rejected suggestions.

soarroying wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

2.3 Set the editor to look like older versions of Scratch
Some users prefer the look and feel of the Scratch 2.0 editor, and have suggested that the editor look like Scratch 2.0, but still run off of HTML5 like Scratch 3.0 does. However, this would be more complicated for educational and documentation purposes. It could be confusing if someone is trying to learn Scratch from someone who is using a completely different layout of the editor than them.

In addition, the Scratch Team changed the design for a reason: to make it easier, more intuitive, and friendlier for newcomers to use. If you dislike the Scratch 3.0 editor, you can still download the Scratch 1.4 or Scratch 2.0 offline editors.

^That includes code editor, costumes editor, and sound editor. Before you post, I recommend you read The 6th suggestions directory, and The official list of rejected suggestions.

…This is suggesting bringing back an old feature, not changing the way the editor looks as being back to Scratch 1.4 again.

k0d3rrr wrote:

soarroying wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

2.3 Set the editor to look like older versions of Scratch
Some users prefer the look and feel of the Scratch 2.0 editor, and have suggested that the editor look like Scratch 2.0, but still run off of HTML5 like Scratch 3.0 does. However, this would be more complicated for educational and documentation purposes. It could be confusing if someone is trying to learn Scratch from someone who is using a completely different layout of the editor than them.

In addition, the Scratch Team changed the design for a reason: to make it easier, more intuitive, and friendlier for newcomers to use. If you dislike the Scratch 3.0 editor, you can still download the Scratch 1.4 or Scratch 2.0 offline editors.

^That includes code editor, costumes editor, and sound editor. Before you post, I recommend you read The 6th suggestions directory, and The official list of rejected suggestions.

…This is suggesting bringing back an old feature, not changing the way the editor looks as being back to Scratch 1.4 again.

Invalid- the sound editor is part of the editor

soarroying wrote:

Invalid- the sound editor is part of the editor

Bringing back single features isn't rejected.

A mock-up:

I see why you would like this. It would be good to make sure a sound doesn't go over some sort of time limit, or just knowing how long the recording is without stopping it. You could also do a mind trick sort of thing with this, but I think that would be rare.

mybearworld wrote:

Nice mockup! I like how it uses minutes:seconds:centiseconds instead of seconds:centiseconds, since it takes less time to process how long it is, since minutes is more used. Although maybe centiseconds could be removed?

historical_supa wrote:

-snip-
Nice mockup! I like how it uses minutes:seconds:centiseconds instead of seconds:centiseconds, since it takes less time to process how long it is, since minutes is more used. Although maybe centiseconds could be removed?

Not trying to be rude, but do you mean milliseconds? Edit: Never mind, you're right.

Anyway, I can imagine this being a possible addition in the future.

k0d3rrr wrote:

historical_supa wrote:

-snip-
Nice mockup! I like how it uses minutes:seconds:centiseconds instead of seconds:centiseconds, since it takes less time to process how long it is, since minutes is more used. Although maybe centiseconds could be removed?

Not trying to be rude, but do you mean milliseconds?

Centiseconds is 100th of a second, which is what Scratch shows. Milliseconds is 1000th of a second, from what I know.

historical_supa wrote:

k0d3rrr wrote:

historical_supa wrote:

-snip-
Nice mockup! I like how it uses minutes:seconds:centiseconds instead of seconds:centiseconds, since it takes less time to process how long it is, since minutes is more used. Although maybe centiseconds could be removed?

Not trying to be rude, but do you mean milliseconds?

Centiseconds is 100th of a second, which is what Scratch shows. Milliseconds is 1000th of a second, from what I know.

Oh, you're right.
The dictionary on Google didn't have ‘centiseconds’ as an actual word.

Here's a better one:

I'm waiting!

960times10_5is106044 wrote:

I'm waiting!

The ST hasn't even looked at this suggestion yet. Be patient.

bump