16 Sep
2003
16 Sep
'03
11:54 a.m.
--- Mario Lang <mlang(a)delysid.org> wrote:
* Alternative, scriptable, interface have their
advantage even for
the non-blind
* Designing your app more modular will make it easier to extend it
later.
I totally agree with this point. I've looked at a couple of apps
myself to see how easy it would be to rip off the GUI and plug in a
different type of interface with varying levels of success. In my
day job I'm entangled in the MVC paradigm for web development using
J2EE. I think it's cool to see some audio developers trying to
achieve the same thing with native audio apps.
It is totally clear that I can not expect from Free
Software coders
that they find the optimal interface for the blind.
I'm not blind, but I am severely visually impaired. Many of the
interfaces that are currently out there for Linux and other platforms
especially make it difficult for me to work quickly and efficiently.
To me the optimal interface for blind and visually impaired people is
not a command-line text interface, but some hardware interface that
doesn't yet exist. Typing in track numbers and locations on a
numeric keypad is OK, but typing mix envelopes is not all that
useful, IMHO. I'd much prefer to use faders and such for that. If
only there was an intuitive hardware interface for editing waveforms
and drawing envelopes and EQ curves, etc. Again, the MVC approach is
good b/c when such an interface comes to exist it can simply be
plugged in to the audio engine.
What I essential do is asking developers to implement
their 30%
backend engine
in a well-defined library, which can be used by their 70% GUI, and
by other code which might want to.
Again, I really agree with this idea in principle.
Greg
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com