8 Jun
2004
8 Jun
'04
8:20 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:52:02 +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
The point I didnt make is that JAMin /cannot/ be implemented efficiently
as a set of plugins. The (majority, non-ladspa) DSP code is very
intermingled, to make it run in realtime. You could argue that its just a
bad example, but I dont think thats the case.
Usability is a very broad term, some things, like not glitching when you
move a control or making each control have an (apparently) linear and
a definable effect on the sound, are also usability features. Those are
got by correctly mapping the user-facing controls to the underlying DSP
parameters. Usually in a very non-obvious way, but they have no bearing on
the appearance.
Though I do think appearance is important.
- Steve
JAMin is not a
plugin. Its an app.
Think about it.
A typical fx plugin takes audio as input does DSProcessing to the audio
and outputs that. What does JAMin do?
The whole purpose of JAMin is to do DSP. And if you make a send in
ardour... :) I Disagree. We
have 0% affordance, 0% appearance, 100% usability (not that
there really orthoganal). You cant have affordance if you dont have
control over appearance and layout.
Usability - as each host provides it's own UI for the same plugins,
there's really no usability at all. The true beauty about VSTs is that
they have the same visual appearance no matter which application you're
using. That's rule #1 for having usability at all. And then there's the
question of smaller usability issues, this varies from VST plugin to VST
plugin.