Re: Possible modifications to interface

John Rigg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:44:44AM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>   
>>>> 1: What do people think of making jamin into a daemon and splitting the
>>>> interface code off so that the daemon could be run in the background and
>>>> the interface could be used only when needed.
>>>>         
>      
> It would use up system resources unnecessarily when it isn't
> being used. In a large multitrack recording or mixing session
> that is likely to be a problem.
>  
>   

I agree. If it was running in Daemon mode it would be expected that the 
audio was always routed through.

Also as we can bypass each and all of the plugins it would be possible 
to put it into idle mode by enabling full/partial bypass thereby 
reducing the foot print.

>> I'm also wondering if the lack of activity for jamin is partly to do 
>> with the interface. It might be that we are giving people too much rope? 
>> I know we have the presets but maybe we still provide too much room for 
>> error that is putting people off from using it.
>>     
>  
> There are simpler tools available. Jamin is the only FOSS program
> capable of processing masters in a commercial context AFAIK.
> The trouble with removing functionality to make things easy for
> less knowledgeable users is that it can render it useless for
> those who need it to do their job. 
>
>   
We would not remove any functionality. Just make a second version of the 
interface which has a simple layout. It would be easy to add a toggle to 
full layout for power users.

My question is what would the simple interface look like?

We need a slider/knob:
input
output

dropdown for eq settings
dropdown for compressor settings
dropdown for overall settings

Maybe a smaller version of the eq/scope similar to xmms/amarok?

Or would we just have a couple of big 3d dials that could be adjusted to 
different settings and a level meter for i/o?

>> I'm wondering if maybe Jamin is too powerful for some users to get into? 
>> I would have thought that by now every single musician would have it in 
>> their toolset and there would be a thriving community with requests. 
>> Maybe it needs a few tweaks to the interface that makes it less scary 
>> for the casual user to get into?
>>     
>
> Mixing desk manufacturers have been doing this kind of thing lately.
> It used to be common for compact mixers to have two bands of
> swept mid EQ, but now they usually have one or none, thus rendering them
> virtually useless in a real live sound situation. They sell more mixers
> to people who don't understand semi-parametric EQ, but not to pros.
> I'd hate to see a useful tool like Jamin go the same way. 
>   
It would be an optional to run it in simple/pro mode. I would vote for 
simple mode by default but it would be a preference and command line 
option to have it start in pro mode.


> I'm not against usability improvements, just saying some caution needs 
> to exercised in deciding what constitutes an improvement.
>
> John
>   


-- 
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/