Re: Third party plugins in PT 11.1, SSD4 in particular

[John André Lium-Netland]

Hi,

I would recommend adding MOTU Mach Five to the list


***
John André Lium-Netland - Voice/SMS/MMS (+47) 971 68 794
Visit online at www.a-pro-studio.no
***

On 11. jan. 2014, at 20:58, Vinny Pedulla wrote:

> As Slau mentioned, Avid will be doing a presentation on third party plug-in 
> accessibility. A few of us from the list are working with Avid on the issue 
> of developers using proprietary libraries for their presets.
> Besides Waves, Native Instruments, AIR Expansion and the Ozone plug-ins, are 
> there any other plug-ins that have their own libraries? It would be helpful 
> to get a list compiled and pass it on to Ed at Avid, so that at least these 
> developers can be encouraged to provide the standard presets, until the 
> alternate libraries are made accessible.
> Please reply if you know of or use any plug-ins that fall in this category.
> Vinny
> - Original Message - From: "Slau Halatyn" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Third party plugins in PT 11.1, SSD4 in particular
> 
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> As you can see, Avid put in a bunch of work to make the plug-in window quite 
> accessible. The issue that remains to be resolved is that a lot of developers 
> use their own proprietary library system with their own buttons. Avid has no 
> control over that since the developers use an SDK to create and compile their 
> plug-ins to distribute.
> 
> Avid is, of course, aware of this and will, in their upcoming developer 
> conference after the NAMM show, devote two slides in their presentation 
> toward accessibility of plug-ins.
> 
> Slau
> 
> On Jan 7, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Scott Chesworth  wrote:
> 
>> Hey folks,
>> 
>> Having had a breif bit of time in front of PT 11.1, I'm pretty
>> excited. Unfortunately the system I got to tinker with had only stock
>> plugs installed, so just wanted to start a thread on here to find out
>> how everyone is finding access to third party AAX plugins now?
>> 
>> In particular, I was wondering whether anyone has tried the public
>> beta of Slate SSD4 yet? Even if not, it'd be good to find out what the
>> new changes effect for as much third party stuff as possible, so if
>> you've tried anything, let us all know.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out. 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Third party plugins in PT 11.1, SSD4 in particular

[Chris Smart]

You might want to investigate the very popular and some would say 
game-changing Slate Digital plug-ins. (VCC, VTM, VBC), and the Air 
EQ, De-esser and others from Eiosis. Same brilliant guy is behind the 
algorithms in both product lines.At 02:58 PM 1/11/2014, you wrote:
As Slau mentioned, Avid will be doing a presentation on third party 
plug-in accessibility. A few of us from the list are working with 
Avid on the issue of developers using proprietary libraries for their presets.
Besides Waves, Native Instruments, AIR Expansion and the Ozone 
plug-ins, are there any other plug-ins that have their own 
libraries? It would be helpful to get a list compiled and pass it on 
to Ed at Avid, so that at least these developers can be encouraged 
to provide the standard presets, until the alternate libraries are 
made accessible.

Please reply if you know of or use any plug-ins that fall in this category.
Vinny
- Original Message - From: "Slau Halatyn" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Third party plugins in PT 11.1, SSD4 in particular


Hi Scott,

As you can see, Avid put in a bunch of work to make the plug-in 
window quite accessible. The issue that remains to be resolved is 
that a lot of developers use their own proprietary library system 
with their own buttons. Avid has no control over that since the 
developers use an SDK to create and compile their plug-ins to distribute.


Avid is, of course, aware of this and will, in their upcoming 
developer conference after the NAMM show, devote two slides in their 
presentation toward accessibility of plug-ins.


Slau

On Jan 7, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Scott Chesworth  wrote:


Hey folks,

Having had a breif bit of time in front of PT 11.1, I'm pretty
excited. Unfortunately the system I got to tinker with had only stock
plugs installed, so just wanted to start a thread on here to find out
how everyone is finding access to third party AAX plugins now?

In particular, I was wondering whether anyone has tried the public
beta of Slate SSD4 yet? Even if not, it'd be good to find out what the
new changes effect for as much third party stuff as possible, so if
you've tried anything, let us all know.

Cheers

Scott

--
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/groups/opt_out.


--
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/groups/opt_out.
--
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/groups/opt_out.


--
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Third party plugins in PT 11.1, SSD4 in particular

[Vinny Pedulla]

As Slau mentioned, Avid will be doing a presentation on third party plug-in 
accessibility. A few of us from the list are working with Avid on the issue 
of developers using proprietary libraries for their presets.
Besides Waves, Native Instruments, AIR Expansion and the Ozone plug-ins, are 
there any other plug-ins that have their own libraries? It would be helpful 
to get a list compiled and pass it on to Ed at Avid, so that at least these 
developers can be encouraged to provide the standard presets, until the 
alternate libraries are made accessible.

Please reply if you know of or use any plug-ins that fall in this category.
Vinny
- Original Message - 
From: "Slau Halatyn" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Third party plugins in PT 11.1, SSD4 in particular


Hi Scott,

As you can see, Avid put in a bunch of work to make the plug-in window quite 
accessible. The issue that remains to be resolved is that a lot of 
developers use their own proprietary library system with their own buttons. 
Avid has no control over that since the developers use an SDK to create and 
compile their plug-ins to distribute.


Avid is, of course, aware of this and will, in their upcoming developer 
conference after the NAMM show, devote two slides in their presentation 
toward accessibility of plug-ins.


Slau

On Jan 7, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Scott Chesworth  
wrote:



Hey folks,

Having had a breif bit of time in front of PT 11.1, I'm pretty
excited. Unfortunately the system I got to tinker with had only stock
plugs installed, so just wanted to start a thread on here to find out
how everyone is finding access to third party AAX plugins now?

In particular, I was wondering whether anyone has tried the public
beta of Slate SSD4 yet? Even if not, it'd be good to find out what the
new changes effect for as much third party stuff as possible, so if
you've tried anything, let us all know.

Cheers

Scott

--
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/groups/opt_out.


--
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/groups/opt_out. 


--
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility

[Chris Smart]

Sorry, I should have checked the rest of my inbox before posting that.

At 11:16 AM 1/11/2014, you wrote:
Did someone say ILM stands for iLok manager? 
I've never seen this written anywhere! Unless 
you have proof of that, please don't go writing Pace. LOL

At 10:24 PM 1/10/2014, you wrote:

wo wo wo!  Wait a minute here!

ILM is Ilok Manager?  that's the same scheme 
used by JAWS!  JAWS made it 
accessible!  Granted, they did so without the 
physical ILok dongle, and yeah, they only give 
5 activations, but! that isn't the point.  the 
point is, if ILok are the ones who made the ILM 
scheme, and we got it working reliably with 
JFW, who's to say it would be difficult getting 
it working elseware for things that need it.


Frankly, I see this as just lame excuse to 
further delay accessible development.  I'm 
saying, I see their responses as such.  Call me 
a jack ass for saying it, but that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.


Chris.

- Original Message - From: "Scott 
Chesworth" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response 
regarding iLok License Manager accessibility



Oh, depending on what version of QT they've used, there hands really
could be tied quite tight. That said, I'm pretty sure the iZotope
chaps managed to get some semblance of accessibility going pre QT5, so
it can be done.

Good to know it's on the radar anyway. Thanks for keeping us informed.

Scott

On 1/10/14, Chris Smart  wrote:

Perhaps also mention that this affects Windows
users as well, and that NVDA is a free
screenreader they can use in their testing on the Windows side.

At 03:16 PM 1/10/2014, you wrote:

Thank you Slau, I shared this with the mag as
well because so many of the users over there struggle with the same issue.
- Original Message -
From: Slau Halatyn
To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:04 AM
Subject: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding
iLok License Manager accessibility

I was recently put in touch with the president
and vice-president at PACE anti-Piracy, the
makers of the iLok key and the iLok License
Manager software. Since i made it clear that I
wished to share their response with this
community, I'm pasting it below. In fact, I'm
including my original message as well. I'd
normally not send as lengthy an email to a
developer but, under the circumstances and,
given it's impact, I wanted to give it a little more weight.

You'll notice that the vice-president has
responded and they're clearly aware of the issue
and have indicated their intention to resolve
the problem. You'll notice that in my response I
tried to suggest that the project would surely
not take as much work as Mr. Kirk has estimated
but, even if their estimate turns out to be
correct, the fact that they're still willing to
fix it is good news. Still, I think they'll
ultimately find that it won't be as complicated
as it might appear. I do also suspect that the
scope of the work as described by Mr. Kirk also
includes the necessary work it'll take to
migrate to a newer development platform. That
was something that Avid experienced as well and
is one of the reasons it took so long to get to
the point where Avid could begin work on Pro
Tools accessibility. Anyway, you'll find the
initial message and subsequent responses below.

Best,

Slau


On Jan 6, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Slau Halatyn
<s...@besharpstudios.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Cronce,

My name is Slau Halatyn and I've been an iLok
user since 2002 when I made the switch from an
analog multitrack to Pro Tools HD. I'm a blind
studio owner and trained audio engineer in New
York City. When I witnessed the iLok system at
work, I was impressed and, at the same time,
relieved to not have to deal with
challenge/response and registration code
nightmares. Everything went quite swimmingly
until the iLok License Manager. Please allow me to digress just a bit…

I've been working with many people at avid
including Rich Holmes and ed Gray among others
regarding the accessibility of Pro Tools.
Actually, that work started years before when
David Gibbons was still at Digidesign. There
were various obstacles to overcome while the
company transitioned through several
technologies but, with the new release of Pro
Tools 11.1, we've seen incredible strides in
improved accessibility for blind users. With
this comes many new blind users ranging from
students all the way to professional audio engineers and studio owners.

For a time, while Pro Tools was improving in
accessibility from version 8 through 10, the use
of PACE's iLok.com site was
very straight-forward and quite accessible since
it was based on html which, if standards were
followed, was very easy to use. Unfortunately
for blind users, the introduction of the new
iLok License Manager saw this accessibility
completely wiped out. The application is
completely unusable for bl

Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility

[matt diemert]

This is Correct,
Freedom Scientifics authorization scheme is based on sentinel systems,
which is a service that places a key locally on the computers hard
drive, and in many cases when that crashes and burns as it tends to
do, you need additional authorization. Same scheme that iTunes uses
for the most part.
 iLok as it stands is a great solution, recently I had to completely
reinstall the operating system and PT on my mac, and knowing that at
least my license was safe and sound on my iLok was actually a comfort!

On 1/11/14, Chris Smart  wrote:
> Thank you for clearing that up!
>
> At 11:33 PM 1/10/2014, you wrote:
>>Chris,
>>
>>ILM and iLok License Manager are not the same
>>thing. It's simply a coincidence that the first
>>letters for Pace's software product work out to
>>"ILM" but that's not the official name..
>>
>>Slau
>>
>>On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Christopher
>>gilland <clgillan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>wo wo wo!  Wait a minute here!
>>>
>>>ILM is Ilok Manager?  that's the same scheme
>>>used by JAWS!  JAWS made it
>>>accessible!  Granted, they did so without the
>>>physical ILok dongle, and yeah, they only give
>>>5 activations, but! that isn't the point.  the
>>>point is, if ILok are the ones who made the ILM
>>>scheme, and we got it working reliably with
>>>JFW, who's to say it would be difficult getting
>>>it working elseware for things that need it.
>>>
>>>Frankly, I see this as just lame excuse to
>>>further delay accessible development.  I'm
>>>saying, I see their responses as such.  Call me
>>>a jack ass for saying it, but that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
>>>
>>>Chris.
>>>
>>>- Original Message - From: "Scott
>>>Chesworth" <scottcheswo...@gmail.com>
>>>To: <ptaccess@googlegroups.com>
>>>Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:09 PM
>>>Subject: Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response
>>>regarding iLok License Manager accessibility
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, depending on what version of QT they've used, there hands really
>>>could be tied quite tight. That said, I'm pretty sure the iZotope
>>>chaps managed to get some semblance of accessibility going pre QT5, so
>>>it can be done.
>>>
>>>Good to know it's on the radar anyway. Thanks for keeping us informed.
>>>
>>>Scott
>>>
>>>On 1/10/14, Chris Smart <csma...@cogeco.ca>
>>> wrote:
Perhaps also mention that this affects Windows
users as well, and that NVDA is a free
screenreader they can use in their testing on the Windows side.

At 03:16 PM 1/10/2014, you wrote:
>Thank you Slau, I shared this with the mag as
>well because so many of the users over there struggle with the same
> issue.
>- Original Message -
>From:
><mailto:slauhala...@gmail.com>Slau
> Halatyn
>To:
><mailto:ptaccess@googlegroups.com>ptaccess@googlegroups.com
>Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:04 AM
>Subject: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding
>iLok License Manager accessibility
>
>I was recently put in touch with the president
>and vice-president at PACE anti-Piracy, the
>makers of the iLok key and the iLok License
>Manager software. Since i made it clear that I
>wished to share their response with this
>community, I'm pasting it below. In fact, I'm
>including my original message as well. I'd
>normally not send as lengthy an email to a
>developer but, under the circumstances and,
>given it's impact, I wanted to give it a little more weight.
>
>You'll notice that the vice-president has
>responded and they're clearly aware of the issue
>and have indicated their intention to resolve
>the problem. You'll notice that in my response I
>tried to suggest that the project would surely
>not take as much work as Mr. Kirk has estimated
>but, even if their estimate turns out to be
>correct, the fact that they're still willing to
>fix it is good news. Still, I think they'll
>ultimately find that it won't be as complicated
>as it might appear. I do also suspect that the
>scope of the work as described by Mr. Kirk also
>includes the necessary work it'll take to
>migrate to a newer development platform. That
>was something that Avid experienced as well and
>is one of the reasons it took so long to get to
>the point where Avid could begin work on Pro
>Tools accessibility. Anyway, you'll find the
>initial message and subsequent responses below.
>
>Best,
>
>Slau
>
>
>On Jan 6, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Slau Halatyn
><<mailto:s...@besharpstudios.com>s...@besharpstudios.com>
>
>wrote:
>
>Dear Mr. Cronce,
>
>My name is Slau Halatyn and I've been an iLok
>user since 2002 when 

Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility

[Chris Smart]

Thank you for clearing that up!

At 11:33 PM 1/10/2014, you wrote:

Chris,

ILM and iLok License Manager are not the same 
thing. It's simply a coincidence that the first 
letters for Pace's software product work out to 
"ILM" but that's not the official name..


Slau

On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Christopher 
gilland <clgillan...@gmail.com> wrote:



wo wo wo!  Wait a minute here!

ILM is Ilok Manager?  that's the same scheme 
used by JAWS!  JAWS made it 
accessible!  Granted, they did so without the 
physical ILok dongle, and yeah, they only give 
5 activations, but! that isn't the point.  the 
point is, if ILok are the ones who made the ILM 
scheme, and we got it working reliably with 
JFW, who's to say it would be difficult getting 
it working elseware for things that need it.


Frankly, I see this as just lame excuse to 
further delay accessible development.  I'm 
saying, I see their responses as such.  Call me 
a jack ass for saying it, but that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.


Chris.

- Original Message - From: "Scott 
Chesworth" <scottcheswo...@gmail.com>

To: <ptaccess@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response 
regarding iLok License Manager accessibility



Oh, depending on what version of QT they've used, there hands really
could be tied quite tight. That said, I'm pretty sure the iZotope
chaps managed to get some semblance of accessibility going pre QT5, so
it can be done.

Good to know it's on the radar anyway. Thanks for keeping us informed.

Scott

On 1/10/14, Chris Smart <csma...@cogeco.ca> wrote:

Perhaps also mention that this affects Windows
users as well, and that NVDA is a free
screenreader they can use in their testing on the Windows side.

At 03:16 PM 1/10/2014, you wrote:

Thank you Slau, I shared this with the mag as
well because so many of the users over there struggle with the same issue.
- Original Message -
From: 
<mailto:slauhala...@gmail.com>Slau Halatyn
To: 
<mailto:ptaccess@googlegroups.com>ptaccess@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:04 AM
Subject: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding
iLok License Manager accessibility

I was recently put in touch with the president
and vice-president at PACE anti-Piracy, the
makers of the iLok key and the iLok License
Manager software. Since i made it clear that I
wished to share their response with this
community, I'm pasting it below. In fact, I'm
including my original message as well. I'd
normally not send as lengthy an email to a
developer but, under the circumstances and,
given it's impact, I wanted to give it a little more weight.

You'll notice that the vice-president has
responded and they're clearly aware of the issue
and have indicated their intention to resolve
the problem. You'll notice that in my response I
tried to suggest that the project would surely
not take as much work as Mr. Kirk has estimated
but, even if their estimate turns out to be
correct, the fact that they're still willing to
fix it is good news. Still, I think they'll
ultimately find that it won't be as complicated
as it might appear. I do also suspect that the
scope of the work as described by Mr. Kirk also
includes the necessary work it'll take to
migrate to a newer development platform. That
was something that Avid experienced as well and
is one of the reasons it took so long to get to
the point where Avid could begin work on Pro
Tools accessibility. Anyway, you'll find the
initial message and subsequent responses below.

Best,

Slau


On Jan 6, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Slau Halatyn
<<mailto:s...@besharpstudios.com>s...@besharpstudios.com> 
wrote:


Dear Mr. Cronce,

My name is Slau Halatyn and I've been an iLok
user since 2002 when I made the switch from an
analog multitrack to Pro Tools HD. I'm a blind
studio owner and trained audio engineer in New
York City. When I witnessed the iLok system at
work, I was impressed and, at the same time,
relieved to not have to deal with
challenge/response and registration code
nightmares. Everything went quite swimmingly
until the iLok License Manager. Please allow me to digress just a bit…

I've been working with many people at avid
including Rich Holmes and ed Gray among others
regarding the accessibility of Pro Tools.
Actually, that work started years before when
David Gibbons was still at Digidesign. There
were various obstacles to overcome while the
company transitioned through several
technologies but, with the new release of Pro
Tools 11.1, we've seen incredible strides in
improved accessibility for blind users. With
this comes many new blind users ranging from
students all the way to professional audio engineers and studio owners.

For a time, w

Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility

[Chris Smart]

Did someone say ILM stands for iLok manager? I've 
never seen this written anywhere! Unless you have 
proof of that, please don't go writing Pace. LOL

At 10:24 PM 1/10/2014, you wrote:

wo wo wo!  Wait a minute here!

ILM is Ilok Manager?  that's the same scheme 
used by JAWS!  JAWS made it 
accessible!  Granted, they did so without the 
physical ILok dongle, and yeah, they only give 5 
activations, but! that isn't the point.  the 
point is, if ILok are the ones who made the ILM 
scheme, and we got it working reliably with JFW, 
who's to say it would be difficult getting it 
working elseware for things that need it.


Frankly, I see this as just lame excuse to 
further delay accessible development.  I'm 
saying, I see their responses as such.  Call me 
a jack ass for saying it, but that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.


Chris.

- Original Message - From: "Scott 
Chesworth" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response 
regarding iLok License Manager accessibility



Oh, depending on what version of QT they've used, there hands really
could be tied quite tight. That said, I'm pretty sure the iZotope
chaps managed to get some semblance of accessibility going pre QT5, so
it can be done.

Good to know it's on the radar anyway. Thanks for keeping us informed.

Scott

On 1/10/14, Chris Smart  wrote:

Perhaps also mention that this affects Windows
users as well, and that NVDA is a free
screenreader they can use in their testing on the Windows side.

At 03:16 PM 1/10/2014, you wrote:

Thank you Slau, I shared this with the mag as
well because so many of the users over there struggle with the same issue.
- Original Message -
From: Slau Halatyn
To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:04 AM
Subject: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding
iLok License Manager accessibility

I was recently put in touch with the president
and vice-president at PACE anti-Piracy, the
makers of the iLok key and the iLok License
Manager software. Since i made it clear that I
wished to share their response with this
community, I'm pasting it below. In fact, I'm
including my original message as well. I'd
normally not send as lengthy an email to a
developer but, under the circumstances and,
given it's impact, I wanted to give it a little more weight.

You'll notice that the vice-president has
responded and they're clearly aware of the issue
and have indicated their intention to resolve
the problem. You'll notice that in my response I
tried to suggest that the project would surely
not take as much work as Mr. Kirk has estimated
but, even if their estimate turns out to be
correct, the fact that they're still willing to
fix it is good news. Still, I think they'll
ultimately find that it won't be as complicated
as it might appear. I do also suspect that the
scope of the work as described by Mr. Kirk also
includes the necessary work it'll take to
migrate to a newer development platform. That
was something that Avid experienced as well and
is one of the reasons it took so long to get to
the point where Avid could begin work on Pro
Tools accessibility. Anyway, you'll find the
initial message and subsequent responses below.

Best,

Slau


On Jan 6, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Slau Halatyn
<s...@besharpstudios.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Cronce,

My name is Slau Halatyn and I've been an iLok
user since 2002 when I made the switch from an
analog multitrack to Pro Tools HD. I'm a blind
studio owner and trained audio engineer in New
York City. When I witnessed the iLok system at
work, I was impressed and, at the same time,
relieved to not have to deal with
challenge/response and registration code
nightmares. Everything went quite swimmingly
until the iLok License Manager. Please allow me to digress just a bit…

I've been working with many people at avid
including Rich Holmes and ed Gray among others
regarding the accessibility of Pro Tools.
Actually, that work started years before when
David Gibbons was still at Digidesign. There
were various obstacles to overcome while the
company transitioned through several
technologies but, with the new release of Pro
Tools 11.1, we've seen incredible strides in
improved accessibility for blind users. With
this comes many new blind users ranging from
students all the way to professional audio engineers and studio owners.

For a time, while Pro Tools was improving in
accessibility from version 8 through 10, the use
of PACE's iLok.com site was
very straight-forward and quite accessible since
it was based on html which, if standards were
followed, was very easy to use. Unfortunately
for blind users, the introduction of the new
iLok License Manager saw this accessibility
completely wiped out. The application is
completely unusable for blind users trying to
access the program's features with the built-in
screen reader in OS X known as VoiceOve

Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility

[Chris Smart]

Which means what, in standard English?
At 09:50 PM 1/10/2014, you wrote:

QT damn shit

On 2014-01-10 21:04, Slau Halatyn wrote:
I was recently put in touch with the president 
and vice-president at PACE anti-Piracy, the 
makers of the iLok key and the iLok License 
Manager software. Since i made it clear that I 
wished to share their response with this 
community, I'm pasting it below. In fact, I'm 
including my original message as well. I'd 
normally not send as lengthy an email to a 
developer but, under the circumstances and, 
given it's impact, I wanted to give it a little more weight.


You'll notice that the vice-president has 
responded and they're clearly aware of the 
issue and have indicated their intention to 
resolve the problem. You'll notice that in my 
response I tried to suggest that the project 
would surely not take as much work as Mr. Kirk 
has estimated but, even if their estimate turns 
out to be correct, the fact that they're still 
willing to fix it is good news. Still, I think 
they'll ultimately find that it won't be as 
complicated as it might appear. I do also 
suspect that the scope of the work as described 
by Mr. Kirk also includes the necessary work 
it'll take to migrate to a newer development 
platform. That was something that Avid 
experienced as well and is one of the reasons 
it took so long to get to the point where Avid 
could begin work on Pro Tools accessibility. 
Anyway, you'll find the initial message and subsequent responses below.


Best,

Slau


On Jan 6, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Slau Halatyn 
<s...@besharpstudios.com> wrote:


Dear Mr. Cronce,

My name is Slau Halatyn and I've been an iLok 
user since 2002 when I made the switch from an 
analog multitrack to Pro Tools HD. I'm a blind 
studio owner and trained audio engineer in New 
York City. When I witnessed the iLok system at 
work, I was impressed and, at the same time, 
relieved to not have to deal with 
challenge/response and registration code 
nightmares. Everything went quite swimmingly 
until the iLok License Manager. Please allow me to digress just a bit…


I've been working with many people at avid 
including Rich Holmes and ed Gray among others 
regarding the accessibility of Pro Tools. 
Actually, that work started years before when 
David Gibbons was still at Digidesign. There 
were various obstacles to overcome while the 
company transitioned through several 
technologies but, with the new release of Pro 
Tools 11.1, we've seen incredible strides in 
improved accessibility for blind users. With 
this comes many new blind users ranging from 
students all the way to professional audio engineers and studio owners.


For a time, while Pro Tools was improving in 
accessibility from version 8 through 10, the 
use of PACE's iLok.com site 
was very straight-forward and quite accessible 
since it was based on html which, if standards 
were followed, was very easy to use. 
Unfortunately for blind users, the introduction 
of the new iLok License Manager saw this 
accessibility completely wiped out. The 
application is completely unusable for blind 
users trying to access the program's features 
with the built-in screen reader in OS X known 
as VoiceOver. there is no work-around for the 
problem and the only way one can deal with 
licenses is to have a sighted individual 
perform the tasks instead. With the advent of 
new Pro Tools accessibility and upgrading to 
new HDX systems and plug-ins, this affects 
people like me on a daily basis. I know that 
others in our community have written for 
support and have been told that PACE is aware 
of the issue and I would imagine that it has 
possibly been brought to your attention.


I'm writing to you to ask that this issue be 
addressed and resolved as soon as your 
resources allow. To blind users of iLoks, not 
having access to the iLok License Manager is 
the equivalent of sighted users suddenly not 
having access to their licenses and I'm sure 
you're no stranger to user complaints when 
things go wrong. The recent problems that PACE 
experienced was, I'm sure, stressful and you're 
probably relieved to have that behind you. 
Stress, however, is what blind users are 
experiencing every time a demo license or 
upgrade comes up. The disappointment at the 
current state of iLok License Manager 
accessibility is evident every time a new blind user learns of the issue.


I offer you a fairly simple solution: Apple has 
some basic programming guidelines for making 
applications accessible with VoiceOver. 
Largely, it's a matter of simply defining UI 
elements. If UI elements are undefined or 
unlabeled, the user sees nothing in the 
application apart from the menu bar. If a 
button is defined as a button, the user sees 
the button. If that button is unlabeled, well, 
that's not so great. However, if it's defined 
as a button and also labeled, the user can 
perform the default action, interact in 
whichever way is appropriate

Re: trouble saving a a x protools presets

[chad baker]

true there’s bound to be bugs in the beta
i missed the tech support call yesterday my novation impulse still won’t 
recognize protools 11

On Jan 11, 2014, at 10:42 AM, TheOreoMonster  wrote:

> Sounds more like its a public beta issue more so than a AAX issue. The very 
> nature that its a Beta means there is quite possibly still some Bugs and its 
> not ready for prime time just yet.
> On Jan 11, 2014, at 7:24 AM, chad baker  wrote:
> 
>>  hi i currently own stevenslatedrums they just released a public beta 
>> its a a x
>> i installed it but loaded one of the presets all protools said was busy
>> i had a sighted person save a preset again still got busy busy
>> works fine under protools 10 with the r t a s version
>> is it something to do with a a x
>> thanks
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: trouble saving a a x protools presets

[TheOreoMonster]

Sounds more like its a public beta issue more so than a AAX issue. The very 
nature that its a Beta means there is quite possibly still some Bugs and its 
not ready for prime time just yet.
On Jan 11, 2014, at 7:24 AM, chad baker  wrote:

>   hi i currently own stevenslatedrums they just released a public beta 
> its a a x
> i installed it but loaded one of the presets all protools said was busy
> i had a sighted person save a preset again still got busy busy
> works fine under protools 10 with the r t a s version
> is it something to do with a a x
> thanks
> 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

trouble saving a a x protools presets

[chad baker]

hi i currently own stevenslatedrums they just released a public beta 
its a a x
i installed it but loaded one of the presets all protools said was busy
i had a sighted person save a preset again still got busy busy
works fine under protools 10 with the r t a s version
is it something to do with a a x
thanks

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Clearing solo for all tracks.

[studiojay]

Hi everyone, Thanks for the great suggestions to clear solo. I just 
purchased 2 avid artist mixes, so I hope there is a way to do this from the 
surface it self. But these are all great suggestions. Thanks again. Jason

On Friday, January 10, 2014 4:10:54 PM UTC-4, Slau Halatyn wrote:
>
> This discussion is a good illustration of why control surfaces are 
> practically a necessity. Many have dedicated solo clear buttons not to 
> mention the solo buttons themselves which can quickly be turned on or off. 
> Anyway, always good to know multiple ways of getting to the same result. 
> Too bad VoiceOver doesn't support modified clicks yet. I've been suggesting 
> that for some time. Maybe some day but, for now, yes, routing the pointer 
> and clicking a physical mouse or track pad with the modifier is the way to 
> go. 
>
> Slau 
>
> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Poppa Bear > 
> wrote: 
>
> > I will try that Matt. For safe solo, it would make mixing much easier 
> when I get a high track count of instruments that I want to bus and have to 
> rename each instrument track by track because the client baught that music 
> and it is just labeled with the producers name rather than the instrument 
> for that track. 
> > - Original Message - From: "matt diemert" 
> > > 
>
> > To: > 
> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:18 AM 
> > Subject: Re: Clearing solo for all tracks. 
> > 
> > 
> >> Poppa, As far as I'm able to tell, the only way to solo safe a track 
> >> is to physically click the solo button in track strip while holding 
> >> down command. In other words, when I'm on the solo button, I press 
> >> voiceover command f5 to bring mouse focus to the button, and while 
> >> holding down command, click on my mouse. 
> >> 
> >> In regards to the other question, I typically keep my solo on xhor so 
> >> that my solo follows what ever track is selected, if I need to sol up 
> >> ultiple things I make my selection across those tracks first then 
> >> solo. 
> >> Hope this helps. 
> >> 
> >> On 1/10/14, Poppa Bear > wrote: 
> >>> I don't want to highjack your post, but I am wondering something about 
> >>> soloing as well, is there a shortcut key command to put tracks on safe 
> solo 
> >>> mode? 
> >>>  - Original Message - 
> >>>  From: studiojay 
> >>>  To: ptac...@googlegroups.com  
> >>>  Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 8:42 PM 
> >>>  Subject: Clearing solo for all tracks. 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>  Hi everyone, is there a way to clear solos for all tracks in a 
> session? 
> >>> Some times, I may have a track soloed and I can't remember which track 
> it is 
> >>> especially in large sessions and the soloed track may not be playing 
> at the 
> >>> posision in the session I am currently playing. I have to go through 
> each 
> >>> track to find the soloed track. Thanks in advance for any help. Jason 
> >>> 
> >>>  -- 
> >>>  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+u...@googlegroups.com . 
> >>>  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> 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+u...@googlegroups.com . 
> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Warm Regards: 
> >> Matt Diemert 
> >> 330-980-0046 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> 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+u...@googlegroups.com . 
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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+u...@googlegroups.com . 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
>
>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

(OT)FYI: Beyond MP3: New push for high-resolution music

[Sean A. Cummins]

Off topic: Information for you future audio engineers.
Beyond MP3: New push for high-resolution music 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/09/beyond-mp3-new-push-for-high-resolution-music/?intcmp=related

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Accessibility pt10.3.8 vs pt11.1

[Gordon Kent]

Well, I finally got my pro tools 11.1 authorized with avid, with the help of my 
Sweetwater sales guy.  And with a bit of experimentation, I actually was able 
to transfer the key onto my iLok with the license manager on Windows.  If you 
use OCR in jaws or NVDA, you can sort of figure out where you are.  It’s a bit 
better with Jaws.  If you right click on the key you want to transfer, which 
will appear if you selectg “all my licenses” from the license menu, you will 
get a drop down menu.  When  you select activate, you need to highlight the 
destination iLOk and then press OK.  YOu will get another confirmation and you 
need to press OK again on that and you’ll see “Processing.”  Finally it should 
say successful.  BUt it is not by any definition accessible, I just had enough 
tenacity to stick with it and I was nervous that I might do something wrong 
that would deactivate my key or something.  So Pace, if you’re monitoring this 
list, this doesn’t mean you’re off the hook.  On the mac it is totally 
invisible to us.
GOrd
On Jan 10, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Slau Halatyn  wrote:

> Hi Matt,
> 
> It is a bit odd that none of the parameters are visible in that particular 
> plug-in under 10. I wouldn't have guessed at that result. Well, for now, I 
> suppose one could use the 4-band eQ which appears to be readable. Of course, 
> under version 11.1, the 7-band EQ is completely readable. Go figure… :)
> 
> Slau
> 
> On Jan 10, 2014, at 7:13 AM, matt diemert  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Slau,
>> In a previous message in this thread, you mentioned that the AAX plugs
>> were some what accessible in 10.3.8.  I had an instance last night
>> working on someones rig that was running this build, and I just pulled
>> up the 7 band EQ that is standard kit in Pro Tools. When navigating
>> the plug, voice over stopped at the automation settings button and
>> would not go down any further in to the actual EQ settings. Was I
>> doing something wrong, or, are the AAX plugs hit and miss in the
>> 10.3.8 build. It's not a big deal as I can take everything home when
>> we're done working, but it'd be nice to throw some basic EQ in after
>> tracking something.
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> On 1/8/14, Chi Kim  wrote:
>>> Thanks Slau,
>>> Glad that the aax is accessible with pt10 to a certain degree. It's time
>>> for me to convince school to update to Mavericks along with pt11!
>>> 
>>> Chi
>>> 
>>> On 1/6/2014 1:16 PM, Slau Halatyn wrote:
 Hi Chi,
 
 OK, I've had a chance to review and refresh my memory of the issues of 10
 versus 11. Upon review, version 11 really contains all of the
 improvements. The only substantive improvement that version 10 has is
 mainly the accessibility of the counters and AAX plug-ins. Regarding the
 counters, that could quite possibly be because of Mavericks versus
 Mountain Lion. It's been 8 months since I tried version 11 on Mountain
 Lion and there were a load of problems, not the least of which was the
 counter display issue. So, with version 10.3.8, the counters are readable
 but, whether that's because of Mavericks or not, I can't say for sure as
 I've been on Mavericks since the bulk of the accessibility work started.
 
 regarding plug-ins, the AAX plug-ins are accessible for the most part in
 version 10 but not in the same way as they are in 11. In a pinch, I was
 able to use some plug-ins for an emergency after my beta license for 11
 ran out. iLok License Manager not yet being accessible, my only choice at
 the time was to use version 10 for which I had purchased a license back
 before the License Manager was introduced.
 
 So, with those two mentionable improvements but not much else that I can
 tell at a cursory glance, the focus is really on 11.
 
 Hope that helps,
 
 Slau
 
 On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Chi Kim  wrote:
 
> Hi Slau,
> 
> Thanks for the explanation.
> I was just wondering how much accessibility improvement in 11 was
> included in 10.3.8 as well.
> Regardless, I'm looking forward to upgrading to 11!
> 
> Chi
> 
> On 1/5/2014 12:27 PM, Slau Halatyn wrote:
>> Hi Chi,
>> 
>> Yes, there is a difference. The focus on accessibility in the future
>> will be on version 11. There were improvements to 10.3.8 for sure but it
>> was not the primary concentration. From now on, any updates to version
>> 10 will be general maintenance and will not likely include significant
>> improvements to accessibility. Much like bug fixes in other software,
>> it's not expected that the developer will go back to previous versions
>> of the software to fix the problem. The point is that it's fixed in the
>> new version and that's it. In this situation, however, there are still
>> people needing to use version 10 during the transition from 32 to 64 bit
>> and while plug-in developers are pulling up the rear. I was surprised at

any one mess with transfuser

[chad baker]

hi couple quick questions
first any one mess with transfuser if so what parts are accessible to us if any
and is there any where i can get protools training or no
thanks

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.