[linux-audio-dev] Re: [off-list] Read this after your first cup of coffee

[Simon Jenkins]

Paul Davis wrote:

>>>erm... actually they can:
>>>
>>>http://www.digidesign.com/users/user_story.cfm?story_id=1020
>>>      
>>>
>>well spotted that man.
>>    
>>
>
>well, yes and no.
>
Yes and no indeed: Its possible but it involves extra hardware,
extra software, and is still nowhere near as convenient. "Don't
try this at home" as mr Boggs says, although there's an implied
"unless you have to" since he and plenty of others /are/ using it.

I'm surprised that you seem to be classifying DAW GUIs as
fundamental capabilities of the system. I'd have thought that the
split between backend and GUI marked, more or less precisely,
the boundary between its capabilities and its /conveniences/.

Now, admittedly, some of these conveniences may be near
indispensible to work effectively with the product: If you
have a capability to manipulate many hundreds of audio
events then you need a convenient way (as convenient as
can be achieved, anyway) to keep track of where (/when)
they all are. The GUI provides this convenience... IF you
can use it. But if you can't? The capabilities are still there!
You just need to find a different way of getting at them.
(OK, that's a big "just").

Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)

>
>"... Boggs believes that a device such as a J. L. Cooper MCS3800 is a
>"must" for a blind producer."
>
>mr boggs doesn't use any aspect of the protools GUI to run
>protools. he uses outSPOKEN, a speech recognition system, and a JL
>Cooper control surface. since you could connect this style interfaces to
>more or less any program, this either suggests that design for the
>sight-impaired is unnecessary, or that mr. boggs would still be better
>off with a specially designed, non-GUI system. 
>
>i still don't understand how mr. boggs could edit using protools in
>the style that such programs have made rather popular. i have a spent
>quite a bit of time talking with jeremy hall and others about how we
>could add editing to ardour/ksi, and my conclusion is that its a
>research project worthy of at least a master's degree, perhaps even a
>doctorate. 
>
>the point about GUI systems for tasks like audio editing is that the
>screen functions as a sort of backing store for your memory. you don't
>have to remember where all the audio regions/events/clips are, because
>the screen will show you, both statically and more importantly while
>moving one (or more) them around. if you can't see the screen, then
>you either have to (1) remember where everything is yourself, and edit
>using only that memory or (2) devise some other form of mnemonic
>design that performs the same role as the screen does for
>non-sight-impaired users.
>
>i have no doubt that with speech recognition and a control surface,
>tracking and mixing things in the same way that a sight-impaired
>person would have use a tape machine (analog or digital) is entirely
>possible. i suppose people used to do what is still called "3 point"
>and "4 point" edits on systems that had no waveform displays, so i
>guess that is still an approach to editing that is accessible to a
>sight impaired user. however, it doesn't seem to come close to the
>capabilities offered for creative music production by today's DAWs,
>and those capabilities seem to me to be fundamentally predicated on
>the visual memory provided by the GUI.
>
>--p
>
>
>
>
>  
>