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.
14 Jun
14 Jun
11:37 a.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:53:03PM +0200, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
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. :-)
Some things it currently does sure seem very efficient. There are gaping
holes in functionality, though. Not being able to do something at all
is the least efficient ;)
Note that I don't want to bash the Traverso project. It's young and
promising and it being incomplete no surprise. Pitching it against Ardour
is a bad joke, though.
To add some substance:
Editing gain and pitch via holding G and P are very nice. Fade in/out
editing is very well doen, too. Zooming vertically / horrizontaly with
Z is interesting. But I miss a zoom-to-all and zooming to a range /
selection. There's currently no persistent / multiple selection, so
you can't move several clips at once or split them all at the same
position. There seem to be no crossfades and no automation tracks.
Calling interfaces intuitive is highly problematic. If you only accept
what humans are born with, pure instinct as a base for inuition, there's
nothing that could be called intuitive in human computer interaction at all.
If we add experience, things that work like what we already know would be
intuitive. But maybe the interfaces we know are not that good? A better
interface would be less intuitive, then.
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.
Ardour is evolving. Throwing away many many man-years because some user
thinks the interface is inefficient is a bad idea. Improvment step by step
is a better idea. But of course, different concept ideas and preferences of
different toolkits are always a fine reason for yet another project.
--
Thorsten Wilms
Thorwil's Design for Free Software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com
2:11 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
torsdag 14 juni 2007 15:37 skrev Thorsten Wilms:
Calling interfaces intuitive is highly problematic. If
you only accept
what humans are born with, pure instinct as a base for inuition, there's
nothing that could be called intuitive in human computer interaction at
all. If we add experience, things that work like what we already know would
be intuitive. But maybe the interfaces we know are not that good? A better
interface would be less intuitive, then.
Extremely well put.
Ardour is evolving. Throwing away many many man-years
because some user
thinks the interface is inefficient is a bad idea.
I couldn't agree more.
I just want to chime in here to give my support for Ardour. I do not recent
other DAWs and I'll certainly test others to but Ardour (and Muse sometime)
is my main software in my home studio.
And another word for those that doesn't like ardours interface. Please tell
that to ardour-dev. That is probably much, much more constructive than here
at LAU.
regards,
/bengan
3:15 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
A better
interface would be less intuitive, then.
Extremely well put. thinks the
interface is inefficient is a bad idea.
I couldn't agree more.
3:36 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
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
5:21 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
Here as in the open DAW file format thread I would wish
you were
less agressive
OK, I accept that one. Perhaps I am getting over opinionate.
I left out the bit you said about being down the to the facts though.
Nick.
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
3:43 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
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. 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?
Personally I have run Ardour on a variety of hardware ranging from AMD
K7 500 to my current workstation which has 1 Gig of Ram and a 1.6 GHz
AMD Opteron. Nothing great, but it certainly handles it fine.
So I am not sure I would call it inefficient, it runs on the most common
hardware of the time perfectly well. If you want to call that
inefficient, you may as well call any modern program inefficient.
I haven't used Traverso yet, but I think it is pointless to say one
piece of software sucks over another personally at this point in the
game. Get over it, use what you want to, and get the work done. If
Traverso works for you fine, Ardour works perfectly well for me and has
for some time with very specific exceptions, that funnily enough are
being developed right now.
Seablade
4:08 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
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. Ardour
may be efficient, then again, it may also just 'seem' efficient on the big
fat servers it is being developed on.
Sorry Nick, but this is:
1) FUD. I've never had "efficiency" problems of that sort with
Ardour. I had no problems with it on a Celeron 333 or on a PIII 866.
The only limit I ever hit was that my cheap EIDE drive couldn't keep
up when I had about 24 tracks with lots of takes and edits in each
track.
2) Not the issue under discussion. We were talking about efficiency
in the sense of user interface design, not system resources.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
4:23 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
... 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?
Have you ever tried it ? Look at the output of <your favourite CPU load
monitor> while using Ardour ?
I had Ardour running for most of this afternoon, a session with 14 tracks
and 33 channels in total (some tracks are 6-ch, as is the output, can
Traverso do this ?). CPU load around 7% on my 1.7G laptop.
There is bloatware on Linux, but I don't think Ardour is part of that,
even if it has many features that I never use.
--
FA
Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !
6:52 p.m.
New subject: [LAA] Traverso 0.40.0 Released
torsdag 14 juni 2007 19:15 skrev Nick Copeland:
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.
Yes. And that is what I thought was very well put. Both Thomas Vecchione and
Thorsten Wilms have already explained the basic semantics for that word so I
need not bother with that.
And still I ask. Why not go to ardour-dev to suggest how to fix what you think
is not an 'intuitive' interface? Is there a problem with that?
/bengan
A better interface would be less intuitive, then.
Extremely well put.
6465
days inactive
6465
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Bengt Gördén -
Fons Adriaensen -
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen -
Nick Copeland -
Paul Winkler -
Thomas Vecchione -
Thorsten Wilms