Hey Ginny. If you want a live demo of Pro Tools, come on downtown. Briley and I can definitely show you the ropes if you want. Hit me back off list, and we'll make it happen. On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Ginny Owens wrote:
> Absolutely. I only meant to point out that some of the most basic features > in Logic are surprisingly inaccessible. Please, ProTools, come quickly. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ptaccess@googlegroups.com [mailto:ptacc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Bryan Smart > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:08 AM > To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: LogicRE: Update Summer 2010 > > This is probably a thread for VIMac-Audio or MIDI-Mag, but, in short, those > settings aren't in preferences. I'll have to go back to look, but they're > either in the main or mix windows, similar to GB. > > Bryan > > -----Original Message----- > From: ptaccess@googlegroups.com [mailto:ptacc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Ginny Owens > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:23 AM > To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com > Subject: LogicRE: Update Summer 2010 > > Bryan, > Speaking of "small parts" of programs where lack of accessibility is > maddening, have you by any chance found a way to turn off the click during > recording in Logic and to manually set the overall tempo? I'm using a > control surface to overdub multiple tracks of audio, which is working fine. > But I can only seem to shut the click up during playback, and since I can't > set the tempo, well...it's maddening. Lol. > > I'm going to try searching through recording settings again, but any > thoughts would be welcome. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ptaccess@googlegroups.com [mailto:ptacc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Bryan Smart > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:08 AM > To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: Update Summer 2010 > > Slau already wrote you a great reply. However, I'd like to remind you, when > it comes to Logic, that Apple purchased that program from EMagic. They > didn't write it in-house. Beyond that, Logic has been around since well > before Cocoa. It was a Carbon app first, and ran on the classic Mac OS > before that. Such programs are bears to reorganize without breaking > everything. And, in the case of Logic, on the whole, it is actually > extremely accessible. So is GarageBand, for that matter. The infuriating > thing about those apps is that the tiny parts that aren't accessible are > profoundly crucial. For example, I can work almost everything in GB, all the > way down to editing effect and synth presets in their native user > interfaces. However, I can't select any recorded data, so can't edit. No > editing pretty much rules out GB for anything serious. In Logic, I have a > similarly high level of access, but can't access the part of the interface > where the mixing console is displayed. > > Cocoa does mostly work out of the box. When problems appear, it is usually > that controls aren't labeled, but VoiceOver can see them, at least. If you > figure out the purpose of a control, either through trial and error, or if a > sighted person tells you, it is possible to label the control with a VO > hotkey. In the inaccessible places of programs, like Logic, those aren't > even using Cocoa controls. There aren't as many situations on the Mac where > developers avoid using a standardized toolkit like Cocoa for appearance > considerations, as is common on Windows. Cocoa applications can replace the > look and feel of a standard Cocoa control (like a button), while retaining > all of the built-in functionality. On Windows, if you want a button that has > custom 3D effects when you press it, so to make your software synthesizer > look like a real synth, your only choice is to reinvent the wheel. With > Cocoa, you can replace just the part of the button that handles how it is > drawn. No developer wants to reinvent the wheel if it isn't necessary, so > most of them use Cocoa, and tweak it for their needs. A developer making > their own custom button, like above, might draw the label on the button. In > that case, they might skip setting the title attribute on the button, so VO > wouldn't be able to tell you the name of the button. It still could, > however, tell you that there is a button, and it can press it. No problem, > though. You can set a custom label for that button, or, if someone has > already set such a label, they can share it with you. > > > > Bryan > > -----Original Message----- > From: ptaccess@googlegroups.com [mailto:ptacc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Scott Chesworth > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:41 AM > To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Update Summer 2010 > > Hey Brian, > > Sure, I know enough to understand why the accessibility wasn't present in OS > X for so long, and can certainly appreciate that with an app as vast as PT > with the client base it has, an interface rewrite is a huge undertaking that > would have to roll out gradually. I suppose the concern stems from hearing > that the guy Avid hired initially worked on accessibility specifically for a > period. What that makes me wonder is, was he manually exposing areas of the > UI that were still Carbon-based for us so that we'd have the key components > of the app available, or was he going through and playing catch up with the > parts of the UI that other coders had already rewritten in Cocoa. If it's > the former then I'm likely worrying over nothing, but if it's the latter, > and this chap who was a temp at Avid was the only person who had a firm > grasp of Apple's accessibility documentation, then surely the process would > need to be repeated and accessibility will appear in chunks at that point > rather than happening automagically as Avid update their UI. I'm not a > developer by any stretch of the imagination, so I don't know how accurate > Apple's whole "Cocoa just works with VO out of the box" line really is, but > I'd feel a lot more confident about the future if every Cocoa-based app I'd > ever downloaded worked like a charm (which it hasn't), or even if Apple's > own product line was playing ball by now (which it isn't). > > I dunno, perhaps I'm hypersensitive and overanalysing because I had some > momentum and something that appeared to be a career developing last time > around. It gradually had to grind to a halt because lugging around my own > outdated gear and dumping it in the midst of every session wasn't always an > option. I don't want to be in that situation all over again man. > > Scott > > On 6/30/10, Bryan Smart <bryansm...@bryansmart.com> wrote: >> I don't think that you need to worry. >> >> I'm not sure how much of all the future plans and such are supposed to >> be discussed on this list, but Avid is involved in a long term plan to >> update their user interface. Part of the accessibility problem was >> that the interface was created using Carbon, and was originally >> created early on in OS X days, before there even were the >> accessibility features for Carbon, and certainly way before Cocoa was >> available. They're updating their interface for lots of reasons that >> don't even have to do with accessibility. As the interface is >> modernized, VO users naturally receive many benefits. As they go >> forward, there will be less and less of a need for them to do anything > special for VO users. >> >> Bryan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ptaccess@googlegroups.com [mailto:ptacc...@googlegroups.com] On >> Behalf Of Scott Chesworth >> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 4:20 AM >> To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: Update Summer 2010 >> >> The word "feature" and "accessibility" in the same sentence always >> makes me uneasy. No, I wouldn't expect Avid to have a VO guru on hand >> to figure out the most efficient workflow for me to get something >> done, just like I don't expect every support techie to have the >> knowledge to instantly switch off the "drag and drop" terminology in >> his script every time I call Apple, but if a task isn't achievable via >> the keyboard or isn't achievable with VO due to elements not being >> exposed or being incorrectly defined etc, surely it's not unreasonable >> to expect acknowledgement and response to that. In most cases it would >> after all, be an issue that could be fixed with no specialist >> knowledge of anything more than Apple's developer guidelines. I >> suppose what I'm getting at is this. VO support not being publicly >> stated (even the current partial VO support puts them ahead of the >> game compared to Apple >> themselves) makes me uneasy that we're not going to be publicly >> acknowledged as a userbase either. So, if that's the case, what >> happens about new features or interface tweaks from here on in? As I >> said, I totally agree that Avid implementing Apple's accessibility >> guidelines is the most that we could expect from them, and I am >> grateful for what's been implemented so far, but consistency is key to >> this being a viable product for VO users to be able to rely upon it >> professionally. I have to wonder whether implementing those guidelines >> and ensuring that new features aren't going to be totally beyond users >> of accessibility will be considered as part of the development cycle, >> or whether the best we can expect is playing catch up every few years. >> >> I'm not intending to knock Avid. It's just this whole notion of >> accessibility as a feature really, really bugs me. >> >> On 6/30/10, Slau Halatyn <slauhala...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'm preparing an update for the web site at ProToolsPetition.org. For >>> what it's worth, I'll post it here first because it probably won't >>> post to the web site for another day or two. >>> >>> Update Summer 2010 >>> >>> It seems that the fruits of many people's labor are finally beginning >>> to show. After years of interfacing with Digidesign, now known as >>> Avid Technologies, we're seeing the results of our efforts to gain >>> access to Pro Tools. Changes to the code base of Pro Tools that make >>> it easier to navigate the user interface with VoiceOver in OS X were >>> implemented in version 8.0.4. >>> In early June, the HD version was released with the LE and M-Powered >>> versions to follow soon. >>> >>> While there was a great amount of work done to help make Pro Tools >>> useable with VoiceOver, it is by no means a completed project but >>> rather a work in progress. While major aspects of the application are >>> accessible, there remains some areas that will need to be addressed >>> in future versions. We always knew that the issue of accessibility to >>> Pro Tools would need a long-term solution. We hope to see >>> improvements to be rolled out over several releases in the coming years. >>> >>> Although Avid Technologies has made changes to Pro Tools to >>> specifically work better with VoiceOver, it has no plans to announce >>> it as an official feature, per se. Regarding it as a feature would >>> imply thorough testing and full customer support from the perspective >>> of usability with VoiceOver. >>> Naturally, one wouldn't expect Avid to troubleshoot issues regarding >>> accessibility and the use of a screen reader. Essentially, what Avid >>> has done is they've begun to label UI elements according to Apple's >>> programming guidelines. The rest of the user experience has more to >>> do with how VoiceOver works and best practices as blind users of the >>> operating system and application software. >>> >>> Again, since this project is still a work in progress, it's still >>> somewhat experimental as we discover what works and what doesn't. >>> Although Pro Tools is not yet 100% accessible in all of it's areas, >>> I'm glad that the work done thus far was included in the 8.0.4 >>> release. It will allow blind users to begin learning the Pro Tools >>> environment and workflow with plenty of features to explore and >>> master. In the mean time, Avid is aware of the PTAccess email list at >>> GoogleGroups.com and will direct any inquiries from blind users to >>> the growing community of users in the group. Any issues of >>> accessibility can be discussed there and any bugs or feature requests >>> will be aggregated for future submission to Avid. >>> >>> I'll continue to post any major updates here but for the latest >>> information go to http://www.googlegroups.com/group/ptaccess >>> >>> Slau Halatyn >> >
