13 Jun
2007
13 Jun
'07
8:33 p.m.
"Tim Howard":
On 6/13/07, lra4691(a)rit.edu <lra4691(a)rit.edu> wrote:
Since you haven't looked at it more than a "glance", and therefore don't
know anything to be able to say anything either, I wonder what your agenda
is. But it seems like your agenda is to defend Ardour, no matter what.
In case that is true, why?
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).
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…
Not to bash Ardour, but if the interface of
Traverso is as superior as
it seems, perhaps Ardour developers could learn a bit. I believe
Ardour dev's should be focusing on improving the interface's
responsiveness before adding new features, but everyone seems to be
pushing for MIDI in the next release ;p
I suppose it depends on the goal, really. At first glance, Traverso
seems to be aimed more towards an audience of home users, with the
emphasis being on simplicity and an intuitive interface. Ardour is
intended for serious (i.e. professional) audio work, and therefore has
a correspondingly more complex interface.