On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Friday 11 Jun 2004 11:39 am, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> > There seems to be a belief that computers and software would > > eleminate the need for education and training, that sitting at a > > DAW turns you instantly into a sound engineer, and clicking the > > mouse on soft synth makes you a qualified musician. This is a > > complete fallacy, and IMHO just one manifestation of the global > > dumbing-down exercise that's happening all around us, and that is > > driven by those who make money out of it. > > [...] > > I play keyboards, and I'd love to be able to play string or wind > > instruments as well. Unfortunately, these are fundamentally > > different, and it would take years of training and exercise. > > While I think you're right about this over-optimistic marketing of > creative software, I think you should beware of excusing poor > usability on the basis that what the software does is complex. I didn't. What I said was that those who complain because things do no look as they are used to, are in general the same people that just do not master the application domain itself. Those that do will just get on with the job. > There's nothing in your metaphor that would excuse, for example, > making your file selector hard to use or your sliders work > differently from everyone else's. I agree there is no good reason to *make* things hard to use. As to the sliders, what options do we have ? There has been some debate on this list recently on mouse key bindings for sliders, and I did not see much agreement, except that L-drag should move the slider in the expected way. What is the best choice fo the other comninations really depends on the application. If the 'standard' says that a R-click should popup a context menu, and I don not need such a menu at all, why not use that for some- thing else that makes sense ? > ... An advantage of software over violins is that software is > generally open to improvements in usability without altering its > real function, while a violin is not. Agreed, but that does not imply that everything done by software will as by magic become easy. You can always dumb it down to make it easy, but then very often some of the 'real function' is sacrified. Allowing you to play out of tune is part of the 'real function' of a violin. Allowing you to go beyond the conventions that are observed most of the time is part of the 'real function' of every interesting creative tool or instrument, be it real or software. > If software was as hard to use today as it was forty years ago, > obviously few people would consider making music with it at all; I > simply don't believe that you can disassociate usability and > creativity completely. Well, those people that did make music with computers or electronics forty years ago made a better job of it than 99.99% of those who are trying to do the same today. -- FA
