transfuser and strike
hi i’m wondering if any part of transfuser is accessible to us i heard a sample of it on youtube and liked it i do remixing also can we access preset kits in strike 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: Accessibility pt10.3.8 vs pt11.1
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 chigook...@hotmail.com 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 chigook...@hotmail.com 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 how much was actually done in 10.3.8 to begin with. BTW, one task that is still only doable in 10 and not 11 is to create a custom nudge value. In 11, a VoiceOver user can only choose from the default values whereas in 10 they can click a button, type a value and be done. In neither version is the numeric value visible. Surely, it'll be fixed in 11 at some point but I doubt it'll be addressed in 10. Best, Slau On Jan 5, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Chi Kim chigook...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi, First Slau, congratulation on this milestone! Thank you for making this happen! Is there any difference in accessibility between pt10.3.8 vs pt11.1? Thanks, Chi -- 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. -- 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
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 heavens4r...@gmail.com 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: ptaccess@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+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. -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Clearing solo for all tracks.
Think hiding all tracks would clear solo, although probably a last resort. Isn't there a modifier that inverts selection too? That'd get the workflow down to a couple of clicks. I'm not in front of PT to find it, anyone know what I'm on about? Scott On 1/10/14, matt diemert mcdiem...@gmail.com wrote: 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 heavens4r...@gmail.com 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: ptaccess@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+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. -- 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+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: avid download manager
I've never gotten the download manager to work for me. I always just click the link and it works just fine as a normal download in Safari. Slau On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:17 PM, John Gunn g...@tznet.com wrote: Hi, I tried it but error I needed JAVA installed which I do. I clicked hear to ddownload which is a normal download. I am afraid if one uses the manager it would be like using a dialup connection. smile On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:44 PM, Gordon Kent dbmu...@cybernex.net wrote: Hi: Do any of you use Avid’s download manager when downloading Pro tools or plug ins or whatever? I downloaded the PT 11.1 installer without using the download manager on windows with IE and got transfer rates of over 3 mhz a second. THen I downlaoded the Air creative plug-in bundle and tried it with the DLM. The transfer rate was not even half of what I was getting with the straight IE download. I guess they want you to use it so you can carry folks along with slower internet connections or something. Gord On Jan 8, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Slau Halatyn slauhala...@gmail.com wrote: I had deleted the message from Nick regarding tempo operations but, for what it's worth, I got the license transferred to the iLok and gave it a closer look. Yes, the tempo operations are accessible. It's a little quirky in that, when you click on a field to edit it, you sort of need to delete it all and enter a new value because, by default, the entry seems to be inserted not where you think it is. In other words, if you click on the tempo value, you're actually editing the numbers to the right of the decimal so you need to arrow to the right a bit, hit delete a couple of times and then enter the value. Remember to hit the Apply button and you're good. Again, editing the events themselves is not yet possible although I'm sure it'll be addressed soon and, as stated before, multiple tempo events at the same location will reflect the last entered event's parameters. I have an idea for possibly being able to edit the events at least in terms of deletion. I'll experiment when I have a chance and will report what I find. Slau -- 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: working in a studio with pro tools?
Hi Gabe, Well, I think just about everybody here has been indignant at being perceived as not being able to perform a particular task or get something done as a blind person. Who here hasn't experienced that frustration? Sometimes it's just not worth needing to prove oneself. I don't solder cables. I'm sure I could if I had to. I'm capable of figuring out alternative means to achieve the desired result and, sure, that would probably be satisfying and I'd have a sense of accomplishment but you know what? I'd rather pay someone to do it and not waste my time to prove something. It's pointless unless that particular thing is my passion and it's not. Even with something like audio recording, which so many blind individuals are passionate about, some challenges are worth pursuing and perhaps others are not. I think we all need to choose our battles wisely because we're ultimately fighting them alone. This all started with the idea of a blind person working in a studio. Now, every situation is unique and I'm not saying that it's inconceivable for a blind individual to somehow be gainfully employed by a commercial studio but it's highly improbable in general. Yes, there are exceptions and I'm not saying this is a rule to begin with but, in the grand scheme of things, a blind audio professional is, in my opinion, far better off competing as a sole proprietor or within their own production team. Slau Slau On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:46 PM, Gabe Vega theblindt...@gmail.com wrote: hey buddy, you got to be the most on your game clear headed blind person I have the pleasure to know. where most blind people try to be super man and do all of end all, you just laid it out very clear. my thoughts exactly. thanks so much to your contribution to this list and to the industry as a whole. Gabe Vega CEO Commtech LLC Web: http://commtechusa.net FaceBook: http://facebook.com/commtechllc Twitter: http://twitter.com/commtechllc Email: i...@commtechusa.net Phone: (888) 351-5289 ext. 710 Fax: (480) 535-7649 On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:31 PM, Slau Halatyn slauhala...@gmail.com wrote: I think all capable blind individuals would argue that, in some ways, blind people are forced to adopt extremely streamlined and efficient workflows for all kinds of things in life in order to function. Yes, there are some tasks like mousing around that are slower but, to argue that point, most young computer operators are quite adept at using the keyboard and, apart from just being young genii, are super fast. I don't care how fast a blind user is on a computer, not being able to see is just flat out a game changer and, as I've said before, and I'm not saying it's fair, but there's no contest between a sighted employee and a blind employee when it comes to the all-around work in a studio. I'm not saying that an experienced engineer can't come into a studio and work but, they will have never climbed the ladder in such an establishment. There are simply too many obstacles, literally and figuratively, and the cons outweigh the pros. Lest you misconstrue my position, I contend that, while there are alternative means to perform a great number of tasks for a blind person, again, there's no contest when it comes to all things being equal and one person being sighted and the other being blind. Slau On Jan 9, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Poppa Bear heavens4r...@gmail.com wrote: Slau, I do think that sighted people often do have the advantage in any vocation, but at the same time, I do notice that it is easy for sighted people to take for Granit certain tasks and grow complacent in the way that they perform them. For instance, I am able to do certain tasks much quicker through some shortcut keys that sighted folks just don’t realize are there. I have even found some engineers that use shortcut keys as much as possible because they are often direct and concise with each execution. Sometimes people wave the mouse around just to click on one task, “chasing the mouse,” is an annoyance for more than one engineer. Also, I think that as a blind user I have an entirely different, if you will, an extra perspective on trouble shooting difficulties. Never the less, I agree with you in a macro since, but I also think that there can be variables that can change the playing field. - Original Message - From: Slau Halatyn slauhala...@gmail.com To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:12 AM Subject: Re: working in a studio with pro tools? Hi Blake, I did that episode maybe 7 years ago so it's long gone. Regarding sighted tasks, I can't even begin to list the things that would require sight. Trust me, even something as mundane as jumping in a car to drive to the nearest Radio Shack because you need an XLR gender switcher is something that clearly requires sight. Between two candidates who might even know Pro Tools equally well, the
Re: Clearing solo for all tracks.
Hi Jason, I think the easiest way to do this is to bring up the Item Chooser list, type s o l o to narrow down the list to only solo buttons and simply arrow down through them. The button that is soloed will stand out in the list as being engaged. Hope that helps, Slau On Jan 10, 2014, at 12:42 AM, studiojay overdriverecord...@gmail.com wrote: 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+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: Accessibility pt10.3.8 vs pt11.1
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 mcdiem...@gmail.com 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 chigook...@hotmail.com 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 chigook...@hotmail.com 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 how much was actually done in 10.3.8 to begin with. BTW, one task that is still only doable in 10 and not 11 is to create a custom nudge value. In 11, a VoiceOver user can only choose from the default values whereas in 10 they can click a button, type a value and be done. In neither version is the numeric value visible. Surely, it'll be fixed in 11 at some point but I doubt it'll be addressed in 10. Best, Slau On Jan 5, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Chi Kim chigook...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi, First Slau, congratulation on this milestone! Thank you for making this happen! Is there any difference in accessibility between pt10.3.8 vs pt11.1? Thanks, Chi -- 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
Re: Clearing solo for all tracks.
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 mcdiem...@gmail.com To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com 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 heavens4r...@gmail.com 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: ptaccess@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+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. -- 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+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.
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 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 and use the UI controls as intended. In most cases, it's a matter of typing a few words per control. Often, Apple's underlying framework takes over at that point and browsing dialogs is already accessible by default.
PT related articul about gaining more head room in mixes
Here is an artical I read last night after hearing an ingineer talk about using multable master busses inbetween tracks and aax busses to be able to gain more head room in the mix and control source signals better. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/articles/pt_0610.htm -- 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
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 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
Re: Clearing solo for all tracks.
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 heavens4r...@gmail.com 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 mcdiem...@gmail.com To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com 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 heavens4r...@gmail.com 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: ptaccess@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+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. -- 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+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: PT related articul about gaining more head room in mixes
I just wanted to point out that this article, like so many found items on the Internet, is a bit long in the tooth. Pro Tools has since moved to a 64-bit architecture. Of course, the salient point that one can simply turn down a master fader to decrease the bus output still applies. That said, many users, myself included, prefer to pull back the rest of the faders and keep master faders at unity gain. It's largely a matter of pure preference but I'd rather have more throw on all faders rather than keeping them around their least significant bits territory. Slau xxOn Jan 10, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Poppa Bear heavens4r...@gmail.com wrote: Here is an artical I read last night after hearing an ingineer talk about using multable master busses inbetween tracks and aax busses to be able to gain more head room in the mix and control source signals better. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/articles/pt_0610.htm -- 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
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.comSlau Halatyn To: mailto:ptaccess@googlegroups.comptaccess@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.coms...@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 http://ilok.com/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
Re: PT related articul about gaining more head room in mixes
I understand your posission and you make a valid point, for me I am still on PT 8 and I have found that quite a few people don't know concepts like this within PT and I hear so many mixes that are pumping extremely hard, for more than one reason of corse, but by just considering a step like this, they could perhaps open up their range of options to make sure that they are not overloading AAX busses when they could put one step in between as a safety net. - Original Message - From: Slau Halatyn To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:26 AM Subject: Re: PT related articul about gaining more head room in mixes I just wanted to point out that this article, like so many found items on the Internet, is a bit long in the tooth. Pro Tools has since moved to a 64-bit architecture. Of course, the salient point that one can simply turn down a master fader to decrease the bus output still applies. That said, many users, myself included, prefer to pull back the rest of the faders and keep master faders at unity gain. It's largely a matter of pure preference but I'd rather have more throw on all faders rather than keeping them around their least significant bits territory. Slau xxOn Jan 10, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Poppa Bear heavens4r...@gmail.com wrote: Here is an artical I read last night after hearing an ingineer talk about using multable master busses inbetween tracks and aax busses to be able to gain more head room in the mix and control source signals better. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/articles/pt_0610.htm -- 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
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.comSlau Halatyn To: mailto:ptaccess@googlegroups.comptaccess@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.coms...@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 http://ilok.com/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
Re: PT related articul about gaining more head room in mixes
Yes, true :) On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Poppa Bear heavens4r...@gmail.com wrote: I understand your posission and you make a valid point, for me I am still on PT 8 and I have found that quite a few people don't know concepts like this within PT and I hear so many mixes that are pumping extremely hard, for more than one reason of corse, but by just considering a step like this, they could perhaps open up their range of options to make sure that they are not overloading AAX busses when they could put one step in between as a safety net. - Original Message - From: Slau Halatyn To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:26 AM Subject: Re: PT related articul about gaining more head room in mixes I just wanted to point out that this article, like so many found items on the Internet, is a bit long in the tooth. Pro Tools has since moved to a 64-bit architecture. Of course, the salient point that one can simply turn down a master fader to decrease the bus output still applies. That said, many users, myself included, prefer to pull back the rest of the faders and keep master faders at unity gain. It's largely a matter of pure preference but I'd rather have more throw on all faders rather than keeping them around their least significant bits territory. Slau xxOn Jan 10, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Poppa Bear heavens4r...@gmail.com wrote: Here is an artical I read last night after hearing an ingineer talk about using multable master busses inbetween tracks and aax busses to be able to gain more head room in the mix and control source signals better. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/articles/pt_0610.htm -- 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 toptaccess+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: avid download manager
Oh I never tried it on the mac. I usually download stuff like that in windows and put it on a jump drive to install on the mac. Gord On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Slau Halatyn slauhala...@gmail.com wrote: I've never gotten the download manager to work for me. I always just click the link and it works just fine as a normal download in Safari. Slau On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:17 PM, John Gunn g...@tznet.com wrote: Hi, I tried it but error I needed JAVA installed which I do. I clicked hear to ddownload which is a normal download. I am afraid if one uses the manager it would be like using a dialup connection. smile On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:44 PM, Gordon Kent dbmu...@cybernex.net wrote: Hi: Do any of you use Avid’s download manager when downloading Pro tools or plug ins or whatever? I downloaded the PT 11.1 installer without using the download manager on windows with IE and got transfer rates of over 3 mhz a second. THen I downlaoded the Air creative plug-in bundle and tried it with the DLM. The transfer rate was not even half of what I was getting with the straight IE download. I guess they want you to use it so you can carry folks along with slower internet connections or something. Gord On Jan 8, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Slau Halatyn slauhala...@gmail.com wrote: I had deleted the message from Nick regarding tempo operations but, for what it's worth, I got the license transferred to the iLok and gave it a closer look. Yes, the tempo operations are accessible. It's a little quirky in that, when you click on a field to edit it, you sort of need to delete it all and enter a new value because, by default, the entry seems to be inserted not where you think it is. In other words, if you click on the tempo value, you're actually editing the numbers to the right of the decimal so you need to arrow to the right a bit, hit delete a couple of times and then enter the value. Remember to hit the Apply button and you're good. Again, editing the events themselves is not yet possible although I'm sure it'll be addressed soon and, as stated before, multiple tempo events at the same location will reflect the last entered event's parameters. I have an idea for possibly being able to edit the events at least in terms of deletion. I'll experiment when I have a chance and will report what I find. Slau -- 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. -- 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
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 mailto: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 http://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 and use the UI controls as intended. In most cases, it's a matter of typing a few words per control.
Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility
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.comSlau Halatyn To: mailto:ptaccess@googlegroups.comptaccess@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.coms...@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 http://ilok.com/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
Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility
Hello sir, or madam, sorry, not sure which you are. Your comment did absolutely nothing to this thread, and quite frankly, say nothing but ignorance in the field of QT knowledge. though I don't know much about it myself, I can tell you it's not quote unquote: damn shit. It can be, but what thing has potential of being bliss perfect in life? With the proper tools, one can somewhat easily make qt accessible. Look at what has been done with QT-Aspi in Linux in combination with the QT Bridge, and with Orca! Also, just for your knowledge, there are a few QT apps that actually read fairly decently with your object or screen review modes in NVDA. OK, I'll admit that doesn't really help us on the mac side with Voiceover, nor did I say even on Windows that it was ideal, cause it's not, but! the point being, it is somewhat of a sollution. You're kind a throwing the chocolate cake to the hungry kid before getting a bite of it yourself, sota speak. Chris. - Original Message - From: Polaris-17 To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 9:50 PM Subject: Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility 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
Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility
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.comSlau Halatyn To: mailto:ptaccess@googlegroups.comptaccess@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.coms...@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 http://ilok.com/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
Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility
OK, then, I stand corrected. My apology. Chris. - Original Message - From: Slau Halatyn To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:33 PM Subject: Re: PACE Anti-Piracy's response regarding iLok License Manager accessibility 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.comSlau Halatyn To: mailto:ptaccess@googlegroups.comptaccess@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.coms...@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
