# Adding a "spectrogram" poll type

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-a-spectrogram-poll-type/29828>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Created:** [June 9, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-a-spectrogram-poll-type/29828 "2015-06-09T22:49:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gerhard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/gerhard/32/119479_2.png) [@gerhard](https://meta.discourse.org/u/gerhard)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 10:32pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-a-spectrogram-poll-type/29828/5 "2015-06-09T22:32:26Z")

</div>

> [@jqnatividad](#):
>
> having something like the number poll type with a min of -100 and a max of 100?

I like the idea of spectrograms, but (without listening to that talk or reading anything about it) do we really need 200 choices (-100 to 100)? I guess -/+5 (or maybe -/+10) should be enough.

> [@lidel](#):
>
> perhaps \<input type=“range” (..)

Please don’t. [Numeric sliders have such a bad UX](https://medium.com/@paulvddool/sliders-are-bad-practice-b56c3b7a6e19) most of the time. Imagine you have a large range like -100 to 100. Try selecting 76. Good luck! In that case a numeric input is way better. And when you have only a few options, it’s easier to just select the option by clicking on a button.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-a-spectrogram-poll-type/29828)._