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 _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
