I have some concern about this. Allowing just any value for certain options will result in errors. We (at least I as a developer of designs) don't test for option values that lay outside the min and max. Those errors will then be caught by the system and added as issues. I'm not sure that is a good idea.

Maybe make it apply only to UX level 5, which is all guardrails off. The pattern is only guaranteed to work within the slider range, but there are situations (like needing a ton of back rise on Bruce and wanting fitted armholes in Aaron) where the 'allowed' range is inadequate.

I agree with laser on this one. there's been times I've really wanted to use ranges outside of the slider. Blocks with little to no ease I know is one, I know that it will be VERY tight but to check my measurements with a sloper that's what I want. I think Bruce was another I had to get creative with just to get it to fit comfortably. I'm sure there's been other times I've lamented not being able to go outside of the slider range, and wondered why I couldn't.

Maybe we could integrate this into the 'Edit settings by hand' dialog? It currently gives an error when you try to save with a value that's out of range, but this could be downgraded to a warning or perhaps a dialog 'do you want to continue?'

(I think this might be easier/less risky than implementing it in the usual UI, since that one responds immediately (even while typing) and this one always requires an extra confirmation in the form of pressing the 'save' button.)

My concern is that every time an error is generated, we log an issue (see #6343). So if we allow options to be changed outside of the intended values, we will see a lot more issues being logged. And these are not 'bugs', but semi-intentional created errors. It would make it that much harder to find the things that we need to troubleshoot.

Can a catch be added to the bug reporter so that any errors generated by an "out of intended value" gets discarded?
I don't know what language is used in the error reporter, but something like if slider value is greater than or less than intended range, skip error report, else generate error report.

I don't think that's practically possible. But I'm not the person that knows these details.

if the worry is bug reports, you'll still get them from me and anyone else who knows to edit the url. Plus the base problem of me and others not being able to make a pattern that fits properly without hacking the system remains a problem and imo goes against what freesewing is intended to be (patterns to fit all different body shapes).

Bringing this up again, I just made a teagan where I wanted a very narrow neck hole and negative ease. I had to manually reduce measurements to make it the shape I wanted, and then I edited the URL to -10% for the neck hole size because I wanted to keep everything else the same shape (neck width is attached to hps to waist which is attached to waist to armpit which affects the armscye). It is very common for "women's" rtw t-shirts to be negative ease, but that's not possible with the current slider ranges.

This is also a problem on Simon. For the button free length field, the help text says “If you want to have buttons below your waistband, you can. You should enter a negative value here, making sure it’s within the length bonus you have available.” but there is no way to actually enter a negative value.

In terms of the User Experience setting, I think it makes sense to allow entering a value outside of the normal range on 4+, and display a warning if this is attempted for level 4. Since otherwise the only difference between level 4 and 5 is the “are you sure?” warnings (at least according to the documentation), for consistency, this shouldn’t be restricted to level 5.