[LAU] yoshimi, zyn and Ardour

[david]

On 09/18/2016 08:17 AM, jonetsu at teksavvy.com wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:02:34 -1000
> David Jones <gnome at hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> But tabs inside a single window completely remove the ability to see
>> the contents of 2 different tabs entirely. So should that be needed
>> anywhere - the option is not there at all.
>
> Yes.  But, is there a real need to see them at the same time ?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd rather have the option.

>> In the Windows world, it's the difference in usability between Excel
>> and Word. I prefer separate windows, you think it "clutter". I'm glad
>> Zyn/Yoshimi thinks my way. ;)
>
> You lost me in Windows world.  I have no idea, or barely.
>
> I use Mixbus 32C, Renoise, Bitwig, synths, email client and web
> browser, all running at the same time.

I use Rosegarden.

> All in their respective desktop.

Yup. And everytime you switch from one desktop to another, your eyes and 
neural processing have to relocate things. I'm not a fan of that extra 
effort. Outside of graphics editing (where I wish modern graphics apps 
had the clean NOTHING IN YOUR FACE UI of the old Targa TIPS graphics 
program), I prefer to keep everything related to a task (making music is 
a task, not a collection of tools to scatter hither and yon).

> I am using that principle since 15 years at it works nicely,
> at home and at work.  At work I may have all consoles connecting to
> servers in one desktop, all consoles for local compiling/development
> work in another, emacs on its own full screen desktop. I always use the
> same keys to switch from one desktop to another.  It takes a fraction
> of a second.  No clutter.
>
> Many windows from a single app on the same desktop when there is no
> real need to have them, yes, clutter.

That's where we differ. You basically think there is no need for apps to 
have multiple windows. I disagree.

> I think that going this way is
> just making up for not thinking much about the UI in the first place,
> delegating part of the UI design to the user at run time on the account
> of flexibility.

Or lazy UI designers who decided that "doing it their way" is the way 
EVERYONE must do it. I do blame MS for that, but some of the big open 
source products seem to operate the same way.

> As far as it see it, not many applications are going that way.  Maybe
> even, rare ?

Perhaps. I think most doing it because then they DON'T have to think 
about the UI. Like all those silly programs that don't use files, yet 
have a File menu that has only one option: Quit.

Don't care. I've done UI work, and there's a lot more complexity and 
nuance. Mass market for-profit products want to spend as little money as 
possible, because any spending directly reduces their profit.

-- 
David W. Jones
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com