--- Mario Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Alternative, scriptable, interface have their advantage even for > the non-blind > * Designing your app more modular will make it easier to extend it > later. >
I totally agree with this point. I've looked at a couple of apps myself to see how easy it would be to rip off the GUI and plug in a different type of interface with varying levels of success. In my day job I'm entangled in the MVC paradigm for web development using J2EE. I think it's cool to see some audio developers trying to achieve the same thing with native audio apps. > It is totally clear that I can not expect from Free Software coders > that they find the optimal interface for the blind. I'm not blind, but I am severely visually impaired. Many of the interfaces that are currently out there for Linux and other platforms especially make it difficult for me to work quickly and efficiently. To me the optimal interface for blind and visually impaired people is not a command-line text interface, but some hardware interface that doesn't yet exist. Typing in track numbers and locations on a numeric keypad is OK, but typing mix envelopes is not all that useful, IMHO. I'd much prefer to use faders and such for that. If only there was an intuitive hardware interface for editing waveforms and drawing envelopes and EQ curves, etc. Again, the MVC approach is good b/c when such an interface comes to exist it can simply be plugged in to the audio engine. > What I essential do is asking developers to implement their 30% > backend engine > in a well-defined library, which can be used by their 70% GUI, and > by other code which might want to. Again, I really agree with this idea in principle. Greg __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
