Eric Dantan Rzewnicki writes: > > > Why is it that having a > > > "viable > > > professional <foo> package" means having a GUI that looks like > > > something > > > from the commercial world? > > Well, if we're going to go there, then we could still use ardour, > > right? I mean ardour is MVC and has a lib and GUI, right? So > > couldn't we put some other GUI (or non-gui interface) on top of > > ardour-lib and use that? > > Sure, there is the ardour-ksi text mode interface. It's fallen a bit > behind the main development, but perhaps is not totally unrecoverable. Not sure my last post (which discussed this briefly) made it through ... Speaking as one who would greatly benefit (because I can ONLY use the ks version now), this is not the best means to this end. Moving to GTK2 would be smarter. Why? Because in the process of building Ardour on GTK2 you pick up all kinds of additional (accessibility) data about each and every widget that can be exposed in all kinds of ways--including via command-line or ncurses, if one wishes. So, this is a superior path because the various kinds of UI never get out of sync -- as has already happened with KS -- and will inevitably continue to happen with the forked approach. > > -Eric Rz. -- Janina Sajka, Chair Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG) janina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: +1 202.494.7040
