[LAU] Re: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
Thorsten Wilms
t_w_ at freenet.de
Thu Jun 14 13:35:33 EDT 2007
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
> What - you fell for that one? It was about the dumbest argument I have
> heard, all it discussed is the meaning of the word 'intuitive' hence
> actually says nothing about either interface.
Why would you think I wanted to say something about either interface
there? I just adressed the issue of a word that is misused frequently.
If you think this is a dumb argument, that has to tell as something
about _you_.
Here as in the open DAW file format thread I would wish you were
less agressive and more down to facts.
> I could agree less although I understand the point. The issue is that if
> you want to make sound then the user interface has to be efficient for
> several reasons, to start with so that CPU cycles are available for what
> you actually want to do - make sound, and that it is responsive even under
> heavy RT audio usage. If the interface is sluggish then you cannot
> accomplish what you want to do. As such, efficiency is of interest.
What a limited understanding of efficiency. Responsiveness is surely a part
of it. But regarding usability / hci, it is mainly about the amount of work
you have to do to reach a certain goal. Like the number of clicks, the way
to travel, the time required.
> Ardour
> may be efficient, then again, it may also just 'seem' efficient on the big
> fat servers it is being developed on. That is fine, design a peice of
> software that only works on the fastest system available and its target
> audience suddenly diminishes. Perhaps to put it another way, do we want a
> situation where bloatware is coming to Linux - it if does not work then buy
> a faster system?
Are you trolling?
--
Thorsten Wilms
Thorwil's Design for Free Software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com
More information about the Linux-audio-user
mailing list