14 Jun
2007
14 Jun
'07
10:52 a.m.
"Tim Howard":
Bad wordings. I ment that traversos interface is about efficiency, or at
least that the main focus is about efficiency. Thats how it appears
too me. It might be simple and intuitive too though, I haven't given that
much thought. :-)
Well, I would like for another daw to take over so that the good
programmers would work on that other daw instead. Unless; Ardour either
gets a significantly more efficient user interface, or it gets support for
an extension language so that it will be possible to customize it without
dwelling into thousands of lines of C++ code.
Oh, and you are completely wrong, by the way. Traverso's interface is not
about simplicity and intuitivity, you had known that if you had tried
traverso. (and especially protux, its predecessor).
Why should it not be simple and intuitive?
And yes, I must admit I have a small agenda too,
against Ardour. I don't
think ardour's user interface is very efficient [1]. Ardour is great, but
it would have been even greater if all the developers on ardour spent all
of their time exclusively working on making ardour's user interface more
efficient to use. Traverso is an excellent program to look at to improve
the situation.
[1]
http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-dev-ardour.org/2007-March/004085.h…
Of course Ardour can be improved by looking at other DAWs and seeing
what works and what doesn't. I have read through this post and agree
with most of your suggestions. A number of them have been implemented
in Ardour2.
But I'm a little confused why you would say you have "a small agenda
too, against Ardour." Submitting feature requests and reporting bugs
(as you have) is very constructive and helpful to further development.
So I wouldn't view that as having an agenda against Ardour.