Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: Yes, except that AudioVideo;Audio and AudioVideo would be enough so long as All the Audio applications have AudioVideo;Audio. Most Video Applications are AudioVideo and it is hard to argue they should include Video without most of them also being Audio, ie. AudioVideo;Audio;Video; If something is both Audio and Video, then it is AudioVideo. It is true, that technically you won't need ever need Video, if you want to separate Audio from Video applications. But, I'm sure you agree that would be going too far with optimizing the number of categories. I do agree. What I am saying is that prioritizing adding Audio to those applications that are audio but only have AudioVideo at present would allow us to move faster. Adding Video at some point would also be helpful, but adding Audio is a more present need. I am speaking of short term and long term goals. Long term, having great categories for all applications can only help. Making Studio easier to maintain and deal with new SW the user may install, will help us in UbuntuStudio now with less work in this area so we can work elsewhere. It will also make Studio work better for 16.04. I don't know how wide spread the term is, but I would say lets get the "low hanging fruit" first. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jun 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > > and is only sensible if there are no other categories that further > > define the desktop file. So, at least one of these two: > > * AudioVideo;Audio > > * AudioVideo;Video > Come to think of it (and I'm not fully sure about this yet), desktop files belonging to audio, or video, or both, should have at least this: * AudioVideo;; * AudioVideo;Audio;; * AudioVideo;Video;; I can't think of any application that doesn't belong to at least one additional category but, perhaps there is? > Yes, except that AudioVideo;Audio and AudioVideo would be enough so long > as All the Audio applications have AudioVideo;Audio. Most Video > Applications are AudioVideo and it is hard to argue they should include > Video without most of them also being Audio, ie. AudioVideo;Audio;Video; If something is both Audio and Video, then it is AudioVideo. It is true, that technically you won't need ever need Video, if you want to separate Audio from Video applications. But, I'm sure you agree that would be going too far with optimizing the number of categories. > >> Tuner may be used in two ways, some people include it for an FM tuner and > >> others use it for an instrument tuner. The FM tuner should have Player as > >> well, In my opinion. > > > > Player specifies something that plays audio or video files. A tuner does > > not do that, right? > > An FM tuner or TV tuner plays an RF Audio/AudioVideo stream in effect. An > instrument tuner analyzes incoming audio and compares it to known > frequencies. Playing is not just files, it applies to streams too. > The Tuner category is not specified for instrument tuners, so it shouldn't be used for that. Only for radio tuners. An instrument tuner does seem like an audio utility. We could also use X-AudioTuner. > > I do think we should add the Tuner to the multimedia playback category > > in the menu though. > > Yes, the instrument tuner would be comfortable in Utility, > AudioVideo;Audio;Utility or AudioVideo;Audio;X-AudioUtility. It would not > be out of place in Accessories so to me the second uses the best > combination with no new categories. > Yes. We can't use a main category, like Utility, if we can't accept the desktop file to also appear there. > > There are a number of applications that use X-Jack. This may help put > things like xjadeo in the right place. Yes, I think we should use X-Jack for anything that supports jack. Also, add it as a keyword, if not present. I'm thinking we add keywords while changing the categories in the desktop files, which comes after we made our suggestions in the wiki. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: On Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 06:53 PM, Len Ovens wrote: Video has two Categories we are interested in: AudioVideo Player Anything with Player and AudioVideo (even if it includes other things) will end up in multimedia players. If it is not Video, We should see at least Audio. Anything without Audio that has AudioVideo is video, any of these without Player is Video Production. According to the Freedesktop standard, if you add Audio, or Video, you must also add AudioVideo. So, either AudioVideo;Audio, or AudioVideo;Video. Having all three I don't think is against any rule, Yes, Anywhere I have said Audio, I am assuming AudioVideo as well. I am only stating the ones we need to filter with. and is only sensible if there are no other categories that further define the desktop file. So, at least one of these two: * AudioVideo;Audio * AudioVideo;Video Yes, except that AudioVideo;Audio and AudioVideo would be enough so long as All the Audio applications have AudioVideo;Audio. Most Video Applications are AudioVideo and it is hard to argue they should include Video without most of them also being Audio, ie. AudioVideo;Audio;Video; A player, like VLC might only need: * AudioVideo;Player Yes, and most of them are already. But, these won't work: * Audio;Player * Video;Player * Audio;Video;Player Right Lintian should dump them out. They will actually "work" The menu sw doesn't really care if AudioVideo is there or not, but they would not be correct. Also, the menu in itself does not really affect our work on the freedesktop categories. We have to choose correct categories that seem logical for each application, and later we can see which categories we end up using in our menu, all though some categories are pretty clear already. True enough. I am only thinking our menu is the best place to start as it affects what we put out. However, I have always wanted the software a user adds after the fact to show up in the right place as well. Tuner may be used in two ways, some people include it for an FM tuner and others use it for an instrument tuner. The FM tuner should have Player as well, In my opinion. Player specifies something that plays audio or video files. A tuner does not do that, right? An FM tuner or TV tuner plays an RF Audio/AudioVideo stream in effect. An instrument tuner analyzes incoming audio and compares it to known frequencies. Playing is not just files, it applies to streams too. I do think we should add the Tuner to the multimedia playback category in the menu though. Yes, the instrument tuner would be comfortable in Utility, AudioVideo;Audio;Utility or AudioVideo;Audio;X-AudioUtility. It would not be out of place in Accessories so to me the second uses the best combination with no new categories. What do we do with Blender? I started thinking more about our extra categories, and realized something. Blender is both Graphics and AudioVideo. In more detail, it's 3DGraphics, and our newly created X-VideoEditing. And, with that, Blender would have something like: Categories:Graphics;3DGraphics;AudioVideo;Video;AudioVideoEditing;X-VideoEditing But, since the combo of Video and AudioVideoEditing makes it possible to filter video editing applications only, there is no need for X-VideoEditing (and the same goed for X-AudioEditing in audio applications). Yes :) I agree X-VideoEditing and X-AudioEditing are not needed. I'm starting to think the latter is the way to go actually. Less custom categories, but with the same result. In the case of Ardour Categories:AudioVideo;Audio;AudioVideoEditing;Sequencer;Recorder Seems fine. I suspect that will happen at the debian level but maybe not the ardour level. Hard to tell though. The combination of Sequencer, AudioVideoEditing and Recorder makes it possible to classify it as a DAW. Yup. LMMS can't record though, can it (I have to admit I don't use it much)? It didn't before and while I had heard rumours audio recording was being added, the web page and faq etc. ( https://lmms.io/ ) do not show any way of getting audio in except as files. It is often regarded as a DAW, in which case perhaps it is enough to use the combo of Sequencer and AudioVideoEditing to classify something as a DAW. In any case, there is not absolute need for X-DAW (no matter if we use it as a menu item or not). I agree. The X-effects and X-Instruments would be great. Anything with MIDI, but not X-effects, X-Istruments or sequencer can be a midi utility. Getting Mixer added to all the ALSA mixers would be a real treat too. It seems the ones that come with ALSA are the worst. There is also HardwareSettings (subbed on Settings, but could be used with AudioVideo;Audio as well (Settings;HardwareSettings;AudioVideo;Audio) if the actual application would be "ok" in the settings menu. There are a number of applications that use X-Jack. This may help put things like
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:02 PM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > Coming back to Blender, I would personally like it if there was a > special desktop file to start Blender in video editing mode, in which > case there would be two desktop files for two purposes. > Blender also has a game engine, and not sure what else around game development. So, it really has many purposes. I can understand if someone does not get why Blender would suddenly end up in the multimedia menu (since most Debian based users aren't using our future menu). So, a second desktop file would really make it seem more logical. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 06:53 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > Any of the Standard Freedesktop Categories can be looked at any time. The > X-* categories can start after finalized. > I'm not sure what you mean here. > One of the changes I would like to see is that any Audio only application > (like a guitar tuner) have both AudioVideo and Audio. It seems that > making > a generally Video application is likely to be AudioVideo because almost > all Video streams include Audio. That is: not worth fighting. > > Video has two Categories we are interested in: > AudioVideo > Player > Anything with Player and AudioVideo (even if it includes other things) > will end up in multimedia players. > > If it is not Video, We should see at least Audio. Anything without Audio > that has AudioVideo is video, any of these without Player is Video > Production. > According to the Freedesktop standard, if you add Audio, or Video, you must also add AudioVideo. So, either AudioVideo;Audio, or AudioVideo;Video. Having all three I don't think is against any rule, and is only sensible if there are no other categories that further define the desktop file. So, at least one of these two: * AudioVideo;Audio * AudioVideo;Video A player, like VLC might only need: * AudioVideo;Player But, these won't work: * Audio;Player * Video;Player * Audio;Video;Player This is one thing I will be adding to the documentation for how we do things. There may be a few rules on obligatory stuff like this. > Honestly, for our menu, I don't think there are enough Video Production > Applications that we need to split this any more. If we did, I would > think > Utilities would be next. I think it's too early to decide how the menu should look. I have installed every package with a desktop file in the Debian sections Sound, Video and Graphics, but since the categories are not complete in the desktop files, it's hard to see which will end up where in the end. We're talking a few hundred desktop files after all :). Also, the menu in itself does not really affect our work on the freedesktop categories. We have to choose correct categories that seem logical for each application, and later we can see which categories we end up using in our menu, all though some categories are pretty clear already. > > Tuner may be used in two ways, some people include it for an FM tuner and > others use it for an instrument tuner. The FM tuner should have Player as > well, In my opinion. Player specifies something that plays audio or video files. A tuner does not do that, right? I do think we should add the Tuner to the multimedia playback category in the menu though. > > What do we do with Blender? > I started thinking more about our extra categories, and realized something. Blender is both Graphics and AudioVideo. In more detail, it's 3DGraphics, and our newly created X-VideoEditing. And, with that, Blender would have something like: Categories:Graphics;3DGraphics;AudioVideo;Video;AudioVideoEditing;X-VideoEditing But, since the combo of Video and AudioVideoEditing makes it possible to filter video editing applications only, there is no need for X-VideoEditing (and the same goed for X-AudioEditing in audio applications). So: Categories:Graphics;3DGraphics;AudioVideo;Video;AudioVideoEditing I'm starting to think the latter is the way to go actually. Less custom categories, but with the same result. In the case of Ardour Categories:AudioVideo;Audio;AudioVideoEditing;Sequencer;Recorder The combination of Sequencer, AudioVideoEditing and Recorder makes it possible to classify it as a DAW. LMMS can't record though, can it (I have to admit I don't use it much)? It is often regarded as a DAW, in which case perhaps it is enough to use the combo of Sequencer and AudioVideoEditing to classify something as a DAW. In any case, there is not absolute need for X-DAW (no matter if we use it as a menu item or not). Coming back to Blender, I would personally like it if there was a special desktop file to start Blender in video editing mode, in which case there would be two desktop files for two purposes. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015, Jimmy Sjölund wrote: On Saturday, June 27, 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: Any other opinions on our set of categories? Because, I'm working on finalizing our feature definition for the Freedesktop Categorization, so that we can start working on that no later than Monday. Looks good to me. Are we to grab an area each on Monday so to speak? Any of the Standard Freedesktop Categories can be looked at any time. The X-* categories can start after finalized. One of the changes I would like to see is that any Audio only application (like a guitar tuner) have both AudioVideo and Audio. It seems that making a generally Video application is likely to be AudioVideo because almost all Video streams include Audio. That is: not worth fighting. Video has two Categories we are interested in: AudioVideo Player Anything with Player and AudioVideo (even if it includes other things) will end up in multimedia players. If it is not Video, We should see at least Audio. Anything without Audio that has AudioVideo is video, any of these without Player is Video Production. Honestly, for our menu, I don't think there are enough Video Production Applications that we need to split this any more. If we did, I would think Utilities would be next. Tuner may be used in two ways, some people include it for an FM tuner and others use it for an instrument tuner. The FM tuner should have Player as well, In my opinion. What do we do with Blender? -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Saturday, June 27, 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > Any other opinions on our set of categories? Because, I'm working on > finalizing our feature definition for the Freedesktop Categorization, so > that we can start working on that no later than Monday. > > Looks good to me. Are we to grab an area each on Monday so to speak? -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 01:18 AM, Len Ovens wrote: > OK I have just pushed a new version of the ubuntustudio-menu package. Al > it needs is to be uploaded and we can all see it. > I'll upload the package today, or tomorrow. We have about two months to make it work, and if we haven't sorted out the desktop files by then, we might need to revert to some customization until the X release, but we can do that just before Feature Freeze, as a last resort in that case. I changed X-Processing into X-AudioProcessing. I realized that even the additional categories need to be quite clear in naming, so that you know more or less exactly what it is used for. Processing doesn't explain enough, I think. Any other opinions on our set of categories? Because, I'm working on finalizing our feature definition for the Freedesktop Categorization, so that we can start working on that no later than Monday. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
OK I have just pushed a new version of the ubuntustudio-menu package. Al it needs is to be uploaded and we can all see it. I have first of all added standard Categories to our own desktop files in the Ubuntustudio Information menu. They are now System;Documentation; I realized that the publishing menu (after we remove what should not be there) only has one item and as we were putting into Graphics anyway, I just put Scribus into Graphics (well it goes there on it's own). Media playback was easy to define with no filename assignments as: AudioVideo And Player. Of course our AUdio Production menu(s) have "Not" Player in them. The only Application that misses in this case is xjadeo which is a player. I suppose we could see if X-Jack could be added, but I think Ardour starts it on it's own when opening a video anyway. Video production is mostly AudioVideo/Not_Player. There are a few things that should and do not have Audio in them (guitar tuners and a few others) gtkguitune.desktop jackeq.desktop jack-rack.desktop ladi-system-tray.desktop lingot.desktop And two that we want here that don't get there: blender.desktop Does not have Audio video. It does have Graphics etc. If There was a way to open this in NLE mode, I would suggest a second Desktop file for this. xjadeo.desktop Does have Player. I am not sure if this should be included here or not. Maybe just let it be in player only. Graphics: I have moved the photography menu inside here as a sub. Entangle is the only app That does not have Photography besides ristretto which is a "Viewer" and really could be used to view more than just Photographs. Comments on where Ristretto should go? The main graphics menu is just Graphics/Publishing/not_photography/not_scanning For some reason I have left Font Manager in there as a file, but It shouldn't need it. evince has been set to not as well (in Office) Should it be visible here too? Anyway, Graphics as it is could be fixed just with the addition of the Photography category to entangle. I did add a utility submenu to graphics which right now just has the scanner app in it. Need comments on what else and how they should be catagorized. That has been the easy stuff :) Audio is a mess :) There are just too many items to lump them all together. The good news first: By using _not_Player, we have gotten rid of all those. Mixer sort of works... just need to add it to a few more Applications: echomixer.desktop alsamixergui.desktop gnome-alsamixer.desktop hdajackretask.desktop hdspconf.desktop hdspmixer.desktop jack-mixer.desktop jack_mixer.desktop jackeq.desktop mudita24.desktop rmedigicontrol.desktop qamix.desktop You may note that we don't even ship all of these. SO I don't know that all of them need to be here. The ones that come with Alsa are the worst offenders. Jackeq despite it's name really is a mixer.. only Category is AudioVideo (Yuck). Effects, Instruments, Audio utilities all need our extra categories. They are by the application right now. These categories would help clean up Midi utilities too. The full use of audioVideoEditing and sequencer etc would help as well. See /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/studio.menu for the very long list of Applications needing attention. While we could make our own desktop files for all these to over ride the default, it is _much_ easier to maintain one file than dozens. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
harvid... the video worked but the sound not.. ffprobe & ffmpeg missing. looks like someone is working on it so I'll try again in a few days to see if it works. I found it easier to open the file in audacity fix it and import it back into Ardour. On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Len Ovens wrote: > > Some of this stuff works as is :) > > I just changed Multimedia Playback from about 150 lines of file names not > to include to: > > > AudioVideo > Player > > > > So now I can set Audio Production and Video Productio to not include > "Player" But to include all Audio or all Video aside from those. This will > be a major simplification. Even with me adding more players, the whole > Multimedia Playback menu is still only about 10 items... Not worth > splitting and also remember that many video players will play Audio files > and vise versa. So in my version of things the player menu will remain > where it is. > > > > -- > Len Ovens > www.ovenwerks.net > > > -- > ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list > ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel > -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
Some of this stuff works as is :) I just changed Multimedia Playback from about 150 lines of file names not to include to: AudioVideo Player So now I can set Audio Production and Video Productio to not include "Player" But to include all Audio or all Video aside from those. This will be a major simplification. Even with me adding more players, the whole Multimedia Playback menu is still only about 10 items... Not worth splitting and also remember that many video players will play Audio files and vise versa. So in my version of things the player menu will remain where it is. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Set Hallstrom wrote: "In a computer, Home is not a place. It's a dynamic." - unknown gnu I also have an issue with search-term menus. But the strange thing about it, is that in the terminal i don't mind just that: typing words...? In a terminal I expect to know the name of the command or what it starts with anyway. In a GUI application search, things are different. The GUI menu or search may not even show the real name of the application... looking for Nautilus? Easy to find in the terminal, but look for "files" in the GUI. Nautilus when it is running, shows the name "Files" in it's about box! You may find searching for a "terminal" gives two or three terminals all named "Terminal" with very simmilar icons, but most of us do not want Xterm... Speaking searching for a terminal, the default terminal may or may not show up :) -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
On 2015-06-23 14:59, Len Ovens wrote: > It would seem that if these go into utility, there is no longer any need > for a photography cataegory as it would have less applications than > utility. > The first three I would not call utility in the same way I would not > call Audacity a utility. Entangle, for someone who is doing stop motion > video, becomes their major recording application. I have seen similar apps > used > by portrait photographers. The word utility can be far reaching to the > point the computer itself is a utility and everything on it. > > The idea is to bring order to the menu and to application searches by > presenting the user with a smaller more focused group of applications. > This can go too far to the point where the application the user is > looking for is effectively hidden. This is one of the reasons I > personally do not like Unity and other search based application > starters. My search terms rarely put the application I am looking for on > the screen. > > I think it is important to look at these from a workflow POV too. If a > utility/accessory gets constant use as part of the workflow, maybe > sub-catagorizing it no longer makes sense. > Yes, taxonomy is a mindstretching task :) "In a computer, Home is not a place. It's a dynamic." - unknown gnu I also have an issue with search-term menus. But the strange thing about it, is that in the terminal i don't mind just that: typing words...? In the context of a software selection-menu like the current one, i'm thinking it's an issue of threshold: on what level of implications/complications is a category-subdivision necessary? When do the testing menu .. ehm.. sessions.?. begins? :) TL;DR i agree with Len. X-GraphicsUtility is an option, but it's probably superfluous as of now. Also: How is the schedule looking? -- Set Hallstrom AKA Sakrecoer http://sakrecoer.com -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Set Hallstrom wrote: Actualy, maybe it's a good idea. I was looking closer at the graphics software list and these seem like good candidate for a X-GraphicsUtility category : Ristretto (viewer) Entangle (wireless camera management) Rapid Photo Downloader (memory card/ management) Phatch Image inspektor (batch foto processing) Phatch PHoto bATCH processor (batch foto processing) It would seem that if these go into utility, there is no longer any need for a photography cataegory as it would have less applications than utility. The first three I would not call utility in the same way I would not call Audacity a utility. Entangle, for someone who is doing stop motion video, becomes their major recording application. I have seen similar apps used by portrait photographers. The word utility can be far reaching to the point the computer itself is a utility and everything on it. The idea is to bring order to the menu and to application searches by presenting the user with a smaller more focused group of applications. This can go too far to the point where the application the user is looking for is effectively hidden. This is one of the reasons I personally do not like Unity and other search based application starters. My search terms rarely put the application I am looking for on the screen. I think it is important to look at these from a workflow POV too. If a utility/accessory gets constant use as part of the workflow, maybe sub-catagorizing it no longer makes sense. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
On 2015-06-23 12:32, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > > I just meant that you are better at deciding all of those things. :) ok *blush* i will do my best to face those expectations with dignity. > Yes, I gathered as much. I will remove it, since I don't think anyone > actually asked to have it there. > For video I know a few applications that may be regarded as utility > applications, and not just system tools. So, I will keep that one for > now. For audio, I think it is clear that there are quite a few utility > type applications. > Actualy, maybe it's a good idea. I was looking closer at the graphics software list and these seem like good candidate for a X-GraphicsUtility category : Agave (color helper tool) ImageMagick (viewer) Ristretto (viewer) Entangle (wireless camera management) Rapid Photo Downloader (memory card/ management) Phatch Image inspektor (batch foto processing) Phatch PHoto bATCH processor (batch foto processing) Font Manager (ehm.. font management) FontManager probably fits better in the typography category tho... But there is a total of 7 of them in graphics, unless i missed something... -- Set Hallstrom AKA Sakrecoer http://sakrecoer.com -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Set Hallstrom wrote: > > On 2015-06-22 16:16, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > > I had a go at updating this page to what seems appropriate right now > > - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/FreedesktopCategories > > It's all straight from the Freedesktop standard, except for a few > > additions/changes. > > Good job!! > > > > ## X-Typography > > > > Not put there by me, and since I don't know graphics very well I leave > > it to Set to figure this one out :). > > > > Gladly, :) but i'm unsure what you want me to figure out? The programs > that suit in there? A definition? A description? Maybe i've missed > something? > I just meant that you are better at deciding all of those things. > On 2015-06-22 16:56, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > > Also, I remember we were talking about Utility applications, but for > > Audio or Video, or even Graphics. > > Maybe that is a good place for image viewers and fontmanagement > software? I'd have to mind-dribble it a bit. But for the time being, my > impression is that it would superfluous with a X-GraphicsUtility > category. > Yes, I gathered as much. I will remove it, since I don't think anyone actually asked to have it there. For video I know a few applications that may be regarded as utility applications, and not just system tools. So, I will keep that one for now. For audio, I think it is clear that there are quite a few utility type applications. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
On 2015-06-22 16:16, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > I had a go at updating this page to what seems appropriate right now > - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/FreedesktopCategories > It's all straight from the Freedesktop standard, except for a few > additions/changes. Good job!! > ## X-Typography > > Not put there by me, and since I don't know graphics very well I leave > it to Set to figure this one out :). > Gladly, :) but i'm unsure what you want me to figure out? The programs that suit in there? A definition? A description? Maybe i've missed something? On 2015-06-22 16:56, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > Also, I remember we were talking about Utility applications, but for > Audio or Video, or even Graphics. Maybe that is a good place for image viewers and fontmanagement software? I'd have to mind-dribble it a bit. But for the time being, my impression is that it would superfluous with a X-GraphicsUtility category. -- Set Hallstrom -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
trying to understand what's going on here. it appears to make more sense then how things are now so I started going through the menus and programs so I could formulate a question for you. I open up Ardour and I felt like I just landed on the moon looks nice What I was going to try was to edit the sound in a webcam video... ( I've done this before) harvid, this is new to me so I will install the server and see how it goes. Trying to organize this i can see is very, very, very hard so thank you Ubuntu Studio Development team very, very, very much for what your doing. Looks good On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Len Ovens wrote: > > categories, we should have ready numbers to prove the need. It seems to >> me that with the menu, 24 items maxes out one column. If doing a search in >> unity or gnome session I think it is less (20ish I think), to fill the >> screen with no scrolling, but we should check to make sure. >> > > On my screen, 38 items fit top to bottom in one column. Xfce's application > search shows 19 when full screen. Anyone running whisker? or Unity or gnome > session? Any comments? > > > > -- > Len Ovens > www.ovenwerks.net > > > -- > ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list > ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel > -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Len Ovens wrote: categories, we should have ready numbers to prove the need. It seems to me that with the menu, 24 items maxes out one column. If doing a search in unity or gnome session I think it is less (20ish I think), to fill the screen with no scrolling, but we should check to make sure. On my screen, 38 items fit top to bottom in one column. Xfce's application search shows 19 when full screen. Anyone running whisker? or Unity or gnome session? Any comments? -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
I added all of the propopsed so far to the wiki. I am forgetting any from the past? There are now 5 new, non-standard categories for audio, 2 new for graphics and audio each. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/FreedesktopCategories -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
> Another thought in all this. With regard to adding new Freedesktop > Categories, There must be some kind of formula (even if unspoken) that > says x number of apps use this category and that causes problems so we > need a new category so we can split them up. So if we are going to ask > for > new categories, we should have ready numbers to prove the need. It seems > to me that with the menu, 24 items maxes out one column. If doing a > search > in unity or gnome session I think it is less (20ish I think), to fill > the screen with no scrolling, but we should check to make sure. > > I think these are the numbers that make sense, the menu is the old way > and > the search style being the new way. > > The other number is distros that would have this problem. The number of > audio distros is surprisingly high. Even if you only count 4 (and > there are more) that is enough to make it reasonable to say this is a > common use. > > I think these things are obvious to us all, but when talking to the > people > on the freedesktop list these numbers are useful for those who go "this > only affects a very few people." The answer is acually it affects quite a > few people. > I think we may still come to change our minds on the usefullness of some categories, while coming up with a couple of new ones. Using the standard categories should never be a problem, but we should not make changes in the code until we are sure about which of the extra ones we want to use. -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: There's AudioVideoEditing, but no AudioEditing and no VideoEditing. Perhaps those two should be added as well? Another thought in all this. With regard to adding new Freedesktop Categories, There must be some kind of formula (even if unspoken) that says x number of apps use this category and that causes problems so we need a new category so we can split them up. So if we are going to ask for new categories, we should have ready numbers to prove the need. It seems to me that with the menu, 24 items maxes out one column. If doing a search in unity or gnome session I think it is less (20ish I think), to fill the screen with no scrolling, but we should check to make sure. I think these are the numbers that make sense, the menu is the old way and the search style being the new way. The other number is distros that would have this problem. The number of audio distros is surprisingly high. Even if you only count 4 (and there are more) that is enough to make it reasonable to say this is a common use. I think these things are obvious to us all, but when talking to the people on the freedesktop list these numbers are useful for those who go "this only affects a very few people." The answer is acually it affects quite a few people. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: There's AudioVideoEditing, but no AudioEditing and no VideoEditing. Perhaps those two should be added as well? Ardour uses AudioEditing, but the debian packager takes it out (Lintian probably coughs). I think one could filter using AudioVideoEditing _and_ Audio or AudioVideoEditing _and_ Video, but as can be seen at least one developer feels AudioEditing makes more sense. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
Also, I remember we were talking about Utility applications, but for Audio or Video, or even Graphics. Does this work? X-AudioUtilty X-VideoUtility X-GraphicsUtility -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
There's AudioVideoEditing, but no AudioEditing and no VideoEditing. Perhaps those two should be added as well? -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Our Set of Freedesktop Categories, WAS:Re: Feature Definition Discussion: Multimedia Application Categorization
Sorry, I almost forgot one of the custom categories we already had before hand. ## X-Processing (Audio;AudioVideo) Another possible word would be Effects. Both seem ok to me, though Processing probably is the most technically correct -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
