Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio

Hey everyone! I was reading what you, Fons, wrote, and I must say that I very strongly disagree with the direction your arguments are taking. 1. "If a developer holds some views that go against those of the average user he will have some very good reasons for that." I guess this is irrelevant to the average user. And it instantly puts your views outside of most people's workflow needs. Additionally, the phrase "good reasons" is too ambiguous. Good for who? Perhaps, it is good for the developer, but not for the user. Linux Audio packages are plagued by reasons that are relevant to the developer, but which should be irrelevant to the user. I don't care if dev thinks knobs are a bad idea, I want a knob and not a text field, because it is easier to use on stage. I don't care if dev has a technical reason to have a text field instead of a knob. I need a knob, because it is easier to use on stage. In the end, what you are suggesting is developer-centered world, not user-centered. Which is fine philosophy, but then you should understand that the likely consequence of that would be software which is generally not useful to anyone but a select few. 2. "There is *no reason at all* to assume that the average user's ideas are 'the right ones'." Actually, there is very good reason. Things that end up in most software are things that have survived the evolution and natural selection of software. Standard user interfaces are backed up by the endorsement of many-many actual users, who havin invested in the software, who have used it professionally and have chosen them over other user interfaces. Just look at the history of DAWs on Windows and see how UI and workflows have evolved. There is great deal to learn from it. Unlike most of the Linux world, proprietary software is under severe competitive pressure. That means that bad work, difficult to use GUIs and useless features generally do not survive. 3. "They way typical Windows SW works is not dictated by user interest. It is determined entirely by the short-term views of marketeers." Oh really. Can you back this up with actual evidence? Most commercial companies are extremely user-centric. Especially DAWs. They are geared towards musicians needs and most of these companies are religiously dedicated to their users. Are you saying Ableton Live is driven by short-term view of marketeers? Can you prove that? Can you explain why Ableton hired a whole number of actual performing musicians to help them test their software? Or that they have a room-full of people testing their software *everyday*? Can you show evidence that Image Line does not care about user feedback and have some short-term marketing views? Have you ever seen how these companies interact with the user and what level of feedback and actual feedback-based development is going on there? Have you ever actually used their software in studio and on stage? Honestly, I think this is a statement that you will not be able to back up. It is simply not true. 4. "If it were no user would ever have any reason to abandon Windows and go for Linux." This statement assumes that the only reason people move to Linux is because they do not like non-Linux software. Which is a highly questionable statement. Among all my friends not one cites that reason as the chief one. In fact, many people miss the great proprietary software they had and wish something like that would emerge in the FLOSS scene. No, a great many people move to Linux for ideological reasons and in some areas for security and financial reasons. But I am yet to meet a person who has a wide range of interests and who has moved to Linux because he does not like non-Linux software. Most of it is clearly superior and such a move is possible in singular cases of extremely niche products that do indeed exist only on Linux, usually of very technical nature. It would be interesting to make a more or less scientific study of that. Perhaps some exist? But surely, the initial statement is doubtful and requires more than just someone's word for it. 5. "Every time the Linux community adopts some stupid Windows 'standard' for the sole reason that it is 'what users expect', this goes against its own long term interests. If Linux ever becomes the perfect Windows clone then it has destroyed its main reason to exist, which is to be different and better." I guess I am not aware Linux community has any long term interests. Last time I checked, Linux community is a diverse group of people with very different interests. Not to mention that your version of long term interests (to be different and better) is highly ambiguous, difficult to formalize and open to all sorts of interpretations. And, of course, I would like to know what kind of "stupid Windows standards" we are talking about. A number of user-centric features that Linux Audio packages often lack do not seem stupid to me. Is the ability of a delay plugin to automatically get the hosts tempo - a stupid Windows standard? If so, I would prefer more stupid Windows standards to be adopted in the Linux Audio community, because they are sure very smart to me, the actual user of the software. Who wants to use it to compose music, you know. Not configure it to death. 6. "Regarding shortcuts for close/quit etc.: they are not always wanted." Well, the important thing here, then, is to not demand the user surrenders to what a single "wise" developer thinks, but take time and effort to actually research when various shortcuts and other things ARE wanted. And not by a couple of fellow developers, but actual musicians, actual end users. A given shortcut might not be desirable always, but it can be desirable in 97% of important cases, which might be a good reason to justify it. What I see constantly in the Linux Audio community is immaturity on a grand scale about UI and workflow design. Weak competition and often small user-base shapes many Linux Audio tools into difficult to use software. Weird, rarely needed features are put in the center under the slogan of "enforcing the user with more options", making it impossible to do simple jobs efficiently. The inability to just make a simple track is defended by criticism towards "pop music". Clear bugs and lack of convenience are explained away by technical and architectural ramblings. This is very sad, very irrational and leads to exactly the closeness of the Linux Audio community that I am seeing throughout the years. I would welcome an honest understanding of the real problems that Linux Audio community faces. This is useful even if we are not able to solve them this very moment. I can understand that UI design is a big-big job that costs a lot of money to research and develop. This is a tough challenge. But what I do not understand is that blazing conquest of dismissing the real state of things with anti-user propaganda. Get real. Linux Audio is interesting and has potential. But currently it is not the pioneering technology. And even if some of it is, most of it is too difficult to setup and use for anyone to actually notice it, in real life circumstances. Louigi. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote: -- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.ru/