[Steve Hills]

Good comments from everyone in this thread. 
The key thing that emerges from most forum discussions, is that, like almost everything, personal preferences govern our choices. 

I've made prototypes with rotary multi-detent pots, smooth pots and rotary switches. The most preferred have been the rotary switches. 
Slide pots don't have sufficient life span and are too easy to accidentally adjust. 
For the latest design there's a combination of rotary switch and smooth pots. 
For all these brake features fine tuning is the idea, so the smooth rotary pots adjust between the detents of the rotary switches. 
The pots will be intuitive and accessible, while being recessed relative to the rotary switches to prevent accidental rotation. 
 
Tactile feedback is important to make quick adjustments on the fly while actually racing, so the layout and function descriptions are important. 
For the TruSpeed range I have always named the controls such that turning clockwise will increase whatever function it adjusts. 
To that end, nomenclature chosen is deliberate to avoid confusion about which way to rotate. 
Additionally the finite faceplate space determines the length of the control names. 
It ends up being a balancing act that won't please everyone, but usually pleases most. 

Possibly the use of RISE and FALL in place of ATTACK and DECAY could work OK, but not sure it really helps.
A graphical representation of the functions will follow once the prototype reaches the production stage.