14 Jun
2007
14 Jun
'07
3:36 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
What - you fell for that one? It was about the dumbest
argument I have
heard, all it discussed is the meaning of the word 'intuitive' hence
actually says nothing about either interface.
Why would you think I wanted to say something about either interface
there? I just adressed the issue of a word that is misused frequently.
If you think this is a dumb argument, that has to tell as something
about _you_.
Here as in the open DAW file format thread I would wish you were
less agressive and more down to facts.
I could agree less although I understand the point.
The issue is that if
you want to make sound then the user interface has to be efficient for
several reasons, to start with so that CPU cycles are available for what
you actually want to do - make sound, and that it is responsive even under
heavy RT audio usage. If the interface is sluggish then you cannot
accomplish what you want to do. As such, efficiency is of interest.
What a limited understanding of efficiency. Responsiveness is surely a part
of it. But regarding usability / hci, it is mainly about the amount of work
you have to do to reach a certain goal. Like the number of clicks, the way
to travel, the time required.
Ardour
may be efficient, then again, it may also just 'seem' efficient on the big
fat servers it is being developed on. That is fine, design a peice of
software that only works on the fastest system available and its target
audience suddenly diminishes. Perhaps to put it another way, do we want a
situation where bloatware is coming to Linux - it if does not work then buy
a faster system?
Are you trolling?
--
Thorsten Wilms
Thorwil's Design for Free Software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com