Hi Scott, having access to libraries through something other than the plug-in developers' environments is perhaps useful and, even having access through the Avid settings menu is surely helpful but the developers really need to take responsibility for revealing their proprietary controls. Right now, it's mostly just preset browsing and saving but, before we know it, they'll add more proprietary functionality and, if we can't access those controls, we're kinda fucked. nOthing wrong with a two-pronged approach but I'm shooting for developers doing the right thing.
Slau On Jan 12, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Scott Chesworth <[email protected]> wrote: > Chaps, rather than targeting individual plugin developers, would it > not make more sense to chase the developers of libraries? The reason I > say this is that having been in touch with a ton of them over the > years (I fire off a short email out of habit whenever I encounter a > plug that I'd like to be able to use but can't), I've received more > responses to the affect of "sorry, would love to be able to help, but > *insert library name here* has my hands tied at this point. Following > along with that train of thought, a few have gone on to raise tickets > with the developers of said libraries, and received the old > non-committal "we'll try and get to it at some point hopefully" > response at best. My thinking is that if any individual libraries > could be given a nudge in the right direction, each single step > forward would make ground in multiple plugins. If you need any > convincing, consider that, were the QT library exposing output to any > form of accessibility API, we'd likely not be in the situation we're > currently in with iLok licensing. A cross-platform library that I see > coming up a lot at the moment is Juce (this is also the most recent > example where I know a couple of developers have inquired about > accessibility). > > Would be interested to hear your thoughts, and happy to help out in > any way I can. > > Scott > > On 1/12/14, CHUCK REICHEL <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Stefan, >> Are you saying your copy of "Ultiverb" is not accessible on your pro tools >> rig? >> If so what version pt are you using? >> Or is Ultiverb just on your wish list? >>> Ultiverb is the next plug I'm looking to acquire! :) >> >> Just need some clarification? >> TIA >> >> >> On Jan 12, 2014, at 3:31 PM, Stefan Albertshauser wrote: >> >>> Hi, „Ultiverb“ is also a candidate. >>> Best Stefan >>> >>> -- >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
