Well this is exactly what I figured. That is why I did not write the company. It is a level head that will prevail and the record shows that. Great work slau I understand everyone's need to have access to the lock.we will just have to wait I believe that the challenge avid sent out can serve us better in the long run.I would never send an email to any third party pertaining to ProTools that I did not include that letter with it.I really believe in a few years we will have major progress on the Mac side with many third-party providers and ProTools as well.I would make a suggestion for us to create ways to bring positive media attention to companies like avid help get them positive public relations a reward for what they are doing. Honey will bring much much more then vinegar.someone get that company in the news and tell how they are the pioneer like Apple and what it can do for the 70% of the blind of America that are out of work and other companies will jump on board. People love to feel good let's do something to help people feel good. And I promise we will gain even more quicklythen any of us could imagine.
Ricky Prevatte LMBT1154 > On Jan 30, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Slau Halatyn <slauhala...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As most of you know, I've kept a dialog going with Pace regarding iLok > License Manager accessibility. Some folks at Avid have been involved in these > discussions. At times, it's been frustrating to be patient and I've mentioned > the importance of maintaining good relations with developers. I personally > don't agree with recent calls for complaint against Pace. I believe it serves > to antagonize. I won't debate this point so don't bother trying to engage me > toward that end. regardless, as per my recent request for an official > statement from Allen cronce, president of Pace, I've received the following > communication which he encouraged me to share with the list. I've already > given him a quick thank you for acknowledgement and will give a proper > response first thing on Monday. > > Hi Slau, > > Thanks for your email. Sorry for my delayed response. I was tied up at the > NAMM show and follow up meetings in southern California earlier this week. > > I agree that it's taking a long time for PACE to provide accessibility > support. I also agree that we have not been communicative regarding our > progress. > > What I don't agree with is the assertion that accessibility support is simple > and easy. If it was, we would have rolled it out and been done with it ages > ago. > > The fact of the matter is that there have been tremendous prerequisites in > our way before we can complete accessibility support in the iLok License > Manager and the Activation Experience. I don't want to bore you with the > software development details. Suffice it to say that we've worked through > about half of the prerequisites in the past quarter, which included a > complete modernization and overhaul of our development tools and build > processes. > > Next up is migrating to Qt 5 (required for modern accessibility support), > which in and of itself is no simple matter. The current estimate for > migrating to Qt 5 and adding accessibility support is on the order of four > man months. > > Additionally, moving to this modern version of Qt will mean that new versions > of the ILM and Experience will not be compatible with 10.6 Snow Leopard. > Currently, about 15% of the user base are still using Snow Leopard. It's not > possible to support two completely different code bases, so we will have to > come up with a strategy to provide legacy OS support for some period while > moving forward with Lion and above for all new versions. This adds to the > complexity of rolling out accessibility. > > We currently have internal commitments to delivering our new 2.5 release this > year in time for NAB. There are a number of new features in that release that > are business critical to PACE and our customers. Unfortunately the engineers > who are committed to the 2.5 release are the same people who are needed to > implement accessibility. Since we have limited resources, we cannot include > accessibility in the 2.5 release. > > So the current thinking is that we'll shoot for providing full accessibility > support in our 3.0 release. The hope is that we will deliver this in the New > York AES timeframe. I realize that that date is probably a disappointment for > you. But honestly I don't see how else we can fit this in. It's just too big > and too disruptive to try to force earlier. > > That having been said, I've been speaking with some of our engineers about > exploring whether or not some accessibility support could be delivered via > the older Qt 4 library that we're currently using. It appears that this older > Qt does have some embryonic accessibility support. We just don't know how bad > it is. > > So while we're marching towards the grand vision of moving to Qt 5 and ideal > accessibility, we've started a skunkworks project to see if we can provide > some level of accessibility earlier in the older Qt version. Even if this > attempt is a bust, it will help familiarize the team with what is needed for > the remaining accessibility effort. If there's any good news on this front, > I'll let you know. > > In the meantime, we're gunning for AES in October. Prior to the release, we > would of course be able to provide beta test versions, if that's interesting. > > One last thought to leave with you. One of the big priority features we were > working on last year was a set of APIs that allows our customers to take over > the activation experience to create things like an in-app store and one > button install. Avid is using these APIs in their upcoming versions of Pro > Tools. That is not something that I could talk about before because it was > unannounced. > > Assuming that Avid will be providing accessibility for these new in-app > purchase features, then newer versions of Pro Tools should allow visually > impaired people to activate and deactivate directly within the application. > > I realize that this is not a complete solution. There will always be > situations where you need to manage your licenses outside of Pro Tools. But > at least for the short term, this might provide some relief. > > Note that I'm fine with you sharing the above information with your group. > > Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. > > Best, > > Allen Cronce > President > PACE Anti-Piracy > al...@paceap.com > http://www.paceap.com > Vox: 408.377.9774, ext. 641 > Fax: 408.377.9775 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Pro Tools Accessibility" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to ptaccess+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pro Tools Accessibility" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ptaccess+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
