Re: [LAD] Experience driven design and Linux Audio

Hi all,

There's a lot of interesting points brought up: I've only just had the
time to read them, and reply to the points that most speak to me (the
individual) and me (as OpenAV).

Charles Henry wrote:
> There does not currently exist a company that is credibly making a complete, whole-system design approach to problems such as audio recording and live sound processing.
There are various companies working on this type of integration
though: there are various HW/SW combo that works with a computer, and
integrates very well: sure they're not selling the PC yet: but it
won't be long I think. Actually they're probably working on developing
that right now :D
(example that I worked with http://www.presonus.com/products/StudioLive-16.0.2 )

Charles Henry also wrote:
> To change: incentive structure. There must be some kind of initiative (non-profit or other organization) that appeals to developers and meets the economic constraints of the world we live in, to be feasible.
Agreed: with my OpenAV hat on, that's something that I'm thinking
about and concidering how I can earn a living somehow by developing
open music software.

Fons wrote:
> there's one significant difference between the users who expect everything (including thinking) to be done for them, and those who are prepared to learn: the latter will say 'thank you'.
Agreed, I also feel that doing the thinking for a user of a piece of
software is not the right thing: I have no issue with a user having to
spend time to learn to use a domain and tool. What I do want to note
here, is that said user should not have to learn an unrelated-domain,
in order to use the software in the target domain.

In my opinion, the learning curve is too steep (or perhaps more
accurately too board) for musicians starting to use linux-audio.

Louigi Verona wrote:
> I will probably record a podcast lil later
Cool, looking forward to your opinion as a user.

Tom wrote:
> Looking at one of the slides.. i find it a strange idea that a CEO would do the (software, "UX") design
Indeed: and I don't agree with everything in the talk; this is a good example.

Tom also wrote:
> Hiding behind the term "professional" to describe software, that is in fact just a cumbersome pile of crap (and thus professional) is another "strategy" i can observe
It is easy to have bad/overly-complicated workflow in a piece of
software, and call it "professional" to make up for it. That's pretty
much exactly why I started this thread: thanks for making it obvious
to me :)

Paul Davis wrote:
> it isn't about being a professional or not
In my opinion its about creating software that caters for a workflow,
or "use case" if that's a term you prefer. This is about designing
software for a particular use-case, and *then* focussing on the
experience while using it.

The talk mentions "the age of experience", perhaps I interchange the
word "workflow" and "experience" sometimes. A smooth workflow provides
a good experience.

And certain use-cases are catered for very well by certain programs
*features*, but the *experience* or *workflow* of using it is not
something that I feel is somewhat lacking.

Flo wrote:
> I'm an enthusiast and I don't need shiny tools and integration. I need well designed (software design, separation of concern, multiple ways of interfacing, language bindings, etc.) building blocks to tinker and experiment with.
And I understand that there is a need for software to cater for your
use case, or preferred workflow too. That's the lower-left quadrant in
the talk: "Open Features-driven" tools. Very powerful when in very
capable hands.

Its users who would prefer a smooth experience that do not have
software available to them on linux audio right now. And its designing
and building software in that domain that I'm interested in (both as
"me", and OpenAV).

Cheers, -Harry

--
http://openavproductions.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev