Op 23-apr.-2015 00:14 schreef "Fons Adriaensen" <fons@linuxaudio.org>:
>
> 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'.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
> 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@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev