23 Apr
2015
23 Apr
'15
12:02 p.m.
Hi eveyone
Although I normally refrain from entering this kind of discussions, I just
can help myself from entering this particular one :-)
I think that the point that most of us are missing is that, prior to decide
the features on a particular product (a software in the discussed cases),
one needs to decide THE TARGET AUDIENCE of such product.
I see myself dealing with this issue daily when working with the MOD and I
imagine that any other product, be it gratis or paid, free or non-free,
hardware or software, is no different in this issue.
I personally believe that there is no such thing as "the perfect globally
accepted set of features" but only the ones that are accepted by a
particular group of users and thus the need to define the target audience
before deciding on the features.
That said, I think that eveyone is right in their arguments and the lack of
concordance comes from the fact that each one is considering a different
target audience.
Computer users (and Linux users also for that matter) can be spread over an
extensive spectrum that stretches from the "80 column monocolor terminal
lover" to the "keyoard hater" and will surely disagree on whats is a good
and what is a bad designed software in terms of user experience - the
thing actually working or not is a totally different matter.
Best wishes to everyone.
Gianfranco Ceccolini
The MOD Team
2015-04-23 7:47 GMT+02:00 Thijs van severen <thijsvanseveren(a)gmail.com>om>:
Op 23-apr.-2015 00:14 schreef "Fons Adriaensen" <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>rg>:
We are not talking about someone that suddenly decided to make up there
own set rules and then tried to fore it upon us
We are talking about a group of people that conducted a study on a large
group of random users, and based on that study they defined a set of
guidelines for us to use ... or ignore
#freedom :-)
I mean the real
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:43:11AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> Just one little note here. Back in 2001, I read an article in the US
> Keyboard magazine that made a strong case for stopping the use of
> skuomorphic GUIs (knobs etc) for a variety of reasons. It wasn't
written
by
> a software developer, but a musician. He was
bemoaning how limited
GUIs for
> audio software were because of their attempt
to present things that
look
like
hardware controls.
There are different grades of that of course. Chickenheads, screws,
handles and ventilation holes in a plugin GUI just look silly IMHO.
But an 'abstracted' version of a rotary control can make sense, it
has some advantages over most alternatives.
On the other extreme, I find the 'standard' widgets offered by
most GUI toolkits completely useless on anything that is supposed
to be 'technical' (including audio apps) rather than an office
application.
People writing 'GUI standards' and trying to force them on everyone
should have a look at e.g. a modern 'glass cockpit'. thing - Boeing or Airbus, not the Garmin etc.
thingies used by sports
pilots that look like (and probabaly are) Windows apps.
This is a very complex environment. A large amount of information,
often competing for attention, has to be displayed accurately and
unambiguously, in a way that is comfortable to be viewed for hours
on end, and that also remains functional in emergency situations
that may require split-second decisions. A lot of research and
effort has gone into designing these things.
You won't find a single 'standard' widget on those displays. Nor
skeuomorphic imitations of traditional flight instruments. The
only thing that still looks a bit traditional would be the attitude
indicator on the PFD, but even that will be a very abstract version
of the old mechanical one.
All of it is designed to be purely functional, no frills, no eye-
candy. Even the MCDUs (the things on the central console that look
like a calculator on steroids) have their own interface style and
conventions that will be quite different from what you may expect.
And that's not because this is a primitive, conservative, or 'ten
years behind the state of the art' technology - these systems are
among the most advanced you can find anywhere.
The same, but probably less extreme, you'll find in almost all
'technical' environments where function is more important than
looks or tradition.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev